Displaying items by tag: Cartel

Pakistan: Cement producers have denied the existence of a cartel to Pakistan's Ministry of Industries. In a meeting with the ministry they reported that they are operating at the lowest rate of return and have passed on the bare minimum impact of inflation to consumers in the past few years.

At the meeting cement producers argued that no cartel existed in the industry because there is no uniformity in prices of cement, utilisation and market. The

price of cement per bag in Pakistan has only increased by up to 38% since 2005 despite input costs rising more than this level. Total equity of the industry is US$1.3bn and it has a 10% rate of return. In contrast, independent power producers (IPPs) are operating at 18% rate of return.

In an interview with the Express Tribune Waleed Sehgal, Director of Maple Leaf Cement Factory, cited examples of price rises in other industries that were more than cement. According to Sehgal the price of sugar had seen a peak rise of 400% since 2005, Urea a rise of 375% and di-ammonium phosphate (DAP) of 400%.

Sehgal stressed that prices of electricity, gas, coal and paper bag, labour cost and freight rate had increased manifold. "We have given the rationale behind the increase in cement prices to the Ministry of Industries," he said. He further said the industry was under debt of US$1.02bn, which it has to pay despite a low return.

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.

India: Encouraged by the general response to its US1.1bn penalty imposed on 11 Indian cement companies for a price-fixing cartel, India's competition watchdog, the Competition Commission of India (CCI), has said that it will show leniency to those companies and individuals that provide information on cartels and anti-competitive agreements.

"It is the right time to reach out to people and encourage them to come out with information on more cartels," said CCI Chairman Ashok Chawla. Chawla said that the Competition Act provides for 'leniency programmes' for those who help the CCI tackle the 'pernicious practise of cartelisation,' and pointed out that the facility had not yet been used.

India: The announcement last week that 11 Indian cement producers face a combined US$1.1bn penalty for a price-fixing cartel will cast a long shadow over the country's increasingly vulnerable-looking cement industry.

For years the Indian cement industry has been beset by suspicions of over-capacity despite a constant stream of new capacity. Now the Competition Commission of India (CCI) thinks that it has got to the heart of the paradox by accusing manufacturers of limiting production amid high demand and colluding to artificially raise prices.

The amount that the CCI has fined the companies, 50% of their net profits for the two fiscal years to 31 March 2011, is quite astonishing. If enforced in its entirety the fine effectively negates a large portion of the sector's profits for an entire fiscal year. This is clearly not a slap-on-the-wrist from the CCI.

In the 1990s and early 2000s a similar cartel case involving European (and specifically German) cement producers led to fines in the order of hundreds of thousands of US Dollars. The industry has since cleaned up its act considerably as a result. Indian producers would be foolish not to follow suit. What are the likely effects in the Indian case?

Removing the cartel that the CCI purports to have found would reduce prices, which are inflated by an oft-quoted 25% median in a cartel. This is clearly good news for consumers and potentially the development of the Indian economy in general. The obvious losers in this situation would be the producers, which would see a reduction in profitability. Some of the smaller producers would find such a situation very challenging, with the risk of going bust or being absorbed into larger companies.

Another possibility is that the accusations will spread along the value chain. Shortly after the announcement of the fine, the Builders' Association of India (BAI), announced that it wants the fine increased to accommodate compensation claims from contractors and consumers that it feels are out-of-pocket as a result of the cartel. Many will feel aggrieved now that they 'know' the cement companies were profiteering - sorting out claims from affected parties could be a long and costly exercise.

The effects of the fine could also extend to outside of India. Indian cement producers, very good customers of the Chinese and European cement plant manufacturers in recent years, will have to deal with lower revenues. This will clearly dampen their enthusiasm to contract further capacity and may cause knock-on-effects for Sinoma, KHD, Polysuis and other major suppliers. The cement industries of neighbouring countries, like Pakistan, may also be affected.

Whatever happens in the Indian cement industry as a result of the CCI's fine, the authority, only formed in 2009, has shown that it is serious about taking on corruption in India. In the long run that can only help develop the potential of the country.

"The first thing for any new competition regulator is to go out and find the cement cartel. My experience of this subject is, it is always there, somewhere," wrote Richard Whish, a Professor of Law at King's College London in 2001. "The only countries in which I had been unable to find the cement cartel is where there is a national state-owned monopoly for cement."

India: Having welcomed the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) decision to impose a record US$1.1bn penalty on 11 cement companies, the Builders' Association of India (BAI) has asked the competition watchdog to review the size of penalty.

The BAI has urged the CCI to, "review the quantum of the penalty and also to conduct an inquiry into the losses incurred by contractors due to such profiteering by cement manufacturers and to consider reimbursing the losses to the contractors."

D L Desai, a trustee of the BAI, said that it had urged the CCI to impose a fixed percentage of the penalty as a deposit with the CCI in case the cement manufacturers approach the Appellate Authority in an attempt to challenge the fine.

"We are happy that the CCI has taken action to penalise the cement companies. It (will) give a boost to the construction industry, leading to the revival of our economy, which is currently going through a difficult phase," said BAI Secretary Anand Gupta.

"The construction industry is a major driver of the Indian economy and any unfair practices as indulged in by the cement companies have adverse impact not only on this industry but the overall economy," he added.

India: In one of the largest fines of its kind, India's antitrust body has imposed a penalty of a combined US$1.1bn on 11 cement companies for price fixing. The companies penalised by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) include ACC and Ambuja Cements (both units of Swiss cement-maker Holcim), UltraTech Cement, Jaiprakash Associates, India Cements, Madras Cements and the local unit of France's Lafarge.

"The commission has found that the cement companies have not utilised the available capacity, so as to reduce supplies and raise prices in times of higher demand," said the CCI in its judgement. It said that the penalty on each company amounted to 50% of their profit for the financial years 2009-10 and 2010-11.

ACC has been fined US$201m and Ambuja has to pay US$204m. India's largest producer of the building material, Ultratech Cement, has to pay US$206m, while Lafarge's Indian unit will have to shell out US$84m. Jaiprakash Associates has been fined US$232m.

On 21 June 2012 the CCI said that the cement companies' action of limiting supplies to the market through an 'anti-competitive agreement' was not only detrimental to consumers but also to the economy, as the building material is a critical input for infrastructure projects. The regulator asked the companies to pay the fine within 90 days. The companies can challenge the regulator's orders in the Competition Appellate Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body and can then appeal to India's Supreme Court.

In response UltraTech said that it hasn't indulged in any cartelisation and that it would appeal against the order in the appellate tribunal. In Zurich Holcim said it would, "contest the allegations and findings against (ACC and Ambuja) in the order and will pursue all available legal steps to defend their respective positions." In Paris Lafarge said, "We will see the detailed report and decide the suitable actions to take. Lafarge has a strict policy to comply with competition laws."

The CCI started accepting cases in 2009, replacing a relatively toothless antitrust body that had been in place since 1970, and has been becoming increasingly assertive. The biggest penalty it had imposed so far was in 2011, when it ordered DLF Ltd., India's biggest property developer by sales, to pay US$120m for abusing its dominant market position by changing agreements signed with some property buyers.

The judgement comes at a bad time for cement companies, as demand for construction materials is weak due to sluggish economic growth and a fall in spending on infrastructure projects. The cost of raw materials such as coal is on the rise as well, pressuring margins.

South Africa: The French multinational Lafarge will pay US$19.3m after it was found guilty of involvement in a cement cartel in South Africa. The Competition Tribunal confirmed that the settlement represented 6% of Lafarge's 2010 turnover in the Southern African Customs Union countries (South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Namibia). AfriSam, another of the cartel participants, previously agreed to pay an 'administrative penalty' of US$16.1m.

Last week Lafarge received a US$20m slap-in-the-face for cartel-like activity in South Africa. The case, which has been running since 2008, has investigated dealings at Lafarge, Pretoria Portland Cement, AfriSam and Natal Portland Cement-Cimpor. Yet the question remains: are cartels ever a good thing for the industry?

Back in December 2011 we covered the Common Price Agreement (CPA) in an article on cement price trends in the UK in Global Cement Magazine. This legally-approved cartel, operated by the UK Cement Makers' Federation, ran from 1934 until 1987. It was dissolved to allow UK producers to compete with cheaper foreign imports. Its supporters argued that it kept prices down in remote areas and stabilised the industry, a situation that cement buyers faced with escalating prices in Tanzania and Saudi Arabia might sympathise with this week. Despite this, prices in the UK fell after the CPA ended in 1987.

An uncited 'fact' on Wikipedia – itself a virtual monopoly on online knowledge – suggests that the median price increase achieved by cartels over the last 200 years could be 25%. Lafarge's fine represented 6% of its 2010 annual turnover in the region. Depending on how Lafarge's sales relate to its turnover this raises the possibility that even with its hefty fine Lafarge may still be in profit over the venture.

Cartels dog the cement industry given the prevalence of small groups of sellers in many markets. Throw in the current economic pressures in regions with over-capacity and the temptation must be irresistible. When one makes a link from this week's story from Pakistan about over-capacity to January's headline of 'inexplicably high' prices, the feeling occurs that Lafarge's chastening in South Africa is just the tip of the iceberg.

What do you think? Join our discussion on cartels in the Global Cement LinkedIn Group

South Africa: Lafarge Industries SA has admitted taking part in a cement cartel and agreed to pay a US$19.6m penalty. The company reached the settlement with the South African Competition Commission after admitting to having taken part in price fixing and market division in the cement industry. As part of the deal Lafarge agreed to pay the penalty, 6% of its 2010 annual turnover in the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) region, which covers South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Namibia.

The case, which has been running since 2008, has investigated dealings at Lafarge, Pretoria Portland Cement (PPC), AfriSam and Natal Portland Cement-Cimpor (NPC-Cimpor). Following a 2009 raid at the offices of the accused parties, PPC applied for leniency and confirmed the existence of a cartel among the four cement producers. In December 2011, an agreement was reached with Afrisam, in which it confirmed the information provided by PPC and agreed to pay a US$16.5m penalty, representing 3% of its 2010 annual turnover in the SACU region.

The commission said that it will continue to investigate NPC-Cimpor.

Mexico: Cemex Chairman and Chief Executive Lorenzo Zambrano has slammed Mexico's antitrust commission and reiterated that the company intends to appeal a fine for allegedly blocking competitors from bringing cement into Mexico. Earlier in February 2012, the Federal Competition Commission (CFC), fined Cemex US$800,000 following an investigation into a failed attempt by a competitor to import cement via a silo ship in 2004.

"We've done nothing illegal," Zambrano said, adding that Cemex used legal measures to combat, "what I personally consider was going to be contraband." Zambrano charged the CFC with having an 'attitude of vengeance,' that he said Cemex had suffered for some time. "They didn't prove anything but imposed the fine. We're going to appeal and we're going to win," he added.

The antitrust investigation followed a complaint by a group that was blocked from importing cement in Mexico from Russia in 2004. Comercio para el Desarrollo Mexicano (CDM), formed by local entrepreneurs and several foreign partners, was kept from unloading the shipment. The CFC voted 4-1 to fine Cemex for what it said was a boycott. The CFC said that it had determined that Cemex has substantial power in the wholesale market for cement, and that it systematically carried out actions to keep out imported cement, including using its influence in the cement industry chamber.

Zambrano said Cemex's share of the domestic market is below 50%, when in earlier years, after a series of acquisitions, it had been as high as 68%. "Nothing's been said about the millions of tons of cement capacity that have been installed in Mexico by our competitors," he added.