Displaying items by tag: Competition Commission

South Africa: The Competition Commission (CC) has approved the merger of Holcim and Lafarge in South Africa. Although Lafarge has a significant presence in South Africa, Holcim's only interest is in a stake it holds in Afrisam.

"The commission found that Holcim's shareholding interest in Afrisam, a cement producer in South Africa, would present anti-competitive effects post-merger," said the CC. "This is due to the fact that the shareholding creates an undesirable structural link between Holcim and Afrisam in that it provides Holcim with access to Afrisam's commercially-sensitive information."

The commission found that the shareholding by Holcim in competitors would create a platform for collusion in the cement industry post-merger. The CC said that this was compounded by the history of collusion in the South African cement industry and the high concentration levels and barriers to entry in the cement industry.

"To address the competition concerns, the commission has approved the merger on the condition that Holcim divests of the shareholding in Afrisam within a period of three years after approval of the merger," said the CC.

Singapore: Lafarge and Holcim have received approval from the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) to merge their businesses in the country.

Holcim (Singapore) and Lafarge Cement Singapore overlap in the manufacture and supply of ready-mix concrete and grey cement. Under Singapore's Competition Act, firms are not allowed to merge if the resulting entity could lead to a substantial lessening of competition in any market. However, Lafarge and Holcim argued that they would not have substantial market power after the merger. Grey cement is also imported to Singapore by Holcim primarily for its own consumption and is supplied to third parties only to a limited extent, they said.

After a public consultation exercise, the CSS issued its decision that 'The transaction is unlikely to lead to substantial competition concerns in Singapore.' This was because the firms are not major players in Singapore, despite being major names in overseas markets. The CSS added, "There is significant localised competition in the relevant overlapping markets in Singapore."
There are also alternative suppliers that can meet any additional demand for ready-mix concrete, thereby limiting the market power of the merged companies. With a number of suppliers in the market, cooperation among firms to raise prices will be harder as well, according to the CSS.

Following a two-year investigation, the UK Competition Commission (CC) has concluded that the UK needs a new cement producer to further encourage competition. Lafarge Tarmac will be required to sell one of its five cement plants. Additionally the CC wants the HeidelbergCement subsidiary Hanson to sell one of its slag grinding plants to increase competition in the supply chain for ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS).

The CC's competition investigation estimated that UK customers were cost at least Euro55m/yr between 2007 and 2012 due to high cement and GGBS prices, brought about by a lack of competition. According to Mineral Products Association (MPA) cement sales data, over the same period cement sales in the UK fell from 12Mt in 2007 to 8Mt in 2012.

Although it seems strange that the CC has acted again to support competition in the UK (just one year afterthe Lafarge Tarmac merger) the CC defended its actions in a letter to the December 2013 issue of Global Cement Magazine. According to Rory Taylor, the Lafarge Tarmac merger inquiry could only maintain pre-existing levels of competition, while the investigation's remit was to increase competition if it found a problem.

Explaining their administrative procedures provided little comfort for Lafarge Tarmac, which complained about the ruling. "Its analysis of industry profitability, which is central to its conclusion of Adverse Effect on Competition, is flawed, grossly overestimating the returns made. It has also failed to take into account the new business environment that has been established by our divestments - only 12 months ago - to create a new competitor (Hope Construction Materials), and the entry of new importers into the market."

One such importer, Quinn Cement, popped up this week with news that it is to invest Euro16m in its cement plant at Cavan, Ireland. It has hopes to capture 1% of the mainland British market, making it up to Euro9.6m in the process. Although the CC doesn't think that imports significantly effect cement prices in the UK, those Irish hopes have likely been boosted following the UK CC's decision. Whether it is in the interest of UK consumers remains to be seen. One measure of the CC's activity this time might be the time that passes before its next intervention in the cement industry.

Returning briefly to last week's column (MINT cement focus: Indonesia, GCW133), Holcim Indonesia has reported that its sales fell by 2% in 2013. Growth in the cement industry in Indonesia is by no means assured. Holcim will publish its full annual results for 2013 on 26 February 2014.

UK: Britain's competition watchdog has asked HeidelbergCement to sell one of its three plants that produces ground granulated blast furnace slag in the UK. The Competition Commission said the move is intended to increase competition.

UK: The Competition Commission (CC) has demanded that Lafarge Tarmac sell one of its cement plants in the UK to create a fifth cement company in the country to increase competition in the market. The CC also intends to increase competition in the supply chain for ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) by forcing Hanson to sell one of its GGBS production facilities. The CC is also introducing measures to limit the flow of information and data concerning cement production and price announcements.

"We believe that the entry of a new, independent cement producer is the only way to disturb the established structure and behaviour in this market which has persisted for a number of years and led to higher prices for customers," said CC Deputy Chairman and Chairman of the Inquiry Group, Professor Martin Cave.

The measures follow a two year investigation which found that both structure and the conduct in the cement sector restricts competition by aiding coordination between the three largest producers: Lafarge Tarmac, Cemex and Hanson. Competition problems also arose from the UK having only one domestic producer of GGBS in the UK (Hanson) with exclusive rights to use the output of Lafarge Tarmac, the single domestic producer of granulated blast furnace slag (GBS), which is the main raw material input into GGBS. The CC estimates that the lack of competition for both of these issues may have cost UK customers up to Euro60m/yr.

The final report follows the publication of the CC's provisional findings in May 2013 and an Addendum to the provisional findings and its provisional decision on remedies in October 2013.

Well, it seems like they were serious.

The UK Competition Commission has provisionally decided that Lafarge Tarmac should sell off one of its cement plants in the Midlands. The Commission also wants the sale to exclude buyers from any pre-existing UK cement producer. The door is open from Holcim or CRH downwards to enter the UK market. Although if the enforced Lafarge sale of Hope to Mittal Investments in 2012 is indicative, it may well be to an industry outsider.

If the move goes ahead it will open up the Midlands and north of England from four cement producers - Hope Cement, Lafarge Tarmac, Hanson and Cemex - to five. Lafarge Tarmac's cement production capacity lead of nearly 4Mt/yr will be knocked down to nearer 3Mt/yr, putting it level with Hanson Cement's production capacity.

Unsurprisingly Lafarge Tarmac is not best pleased, putting out the following in response to the commission's announcement. "The Commission's assumptions and reasoning have serious flaws and the biggest loser in this process will be the customer. There is strong evidence to demonstrate there is effective competition in the sector – with new players having recently entered the marketplace."

The Commission also wants to increase competition in the supply chain for ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS). According to the Commission findings Hanson dominates the UK GGBS market and Lafarge Tarmac controls the market for its precursor, granulated blast furnace slag (GBS). So production facilities may need to be sold by both Hanson and Lafarge Tarmac.

As an aside it's worth noting that the Belgian Competition Council recently imposed fines due to anti-competitive practices also related to GGBS. Also, elsewhere in the news this week Irish GGBS cement producer Ecocem is aligning itself with the EU carbon roadmap to 2050, partly at least because its product produces less CO₂ per tonne of cement. Whoever or whatever controls the supply of GGBS in the UK has implications for how emissions are lowered in the cement sector.

Other suggested measures from the Commission such as restricting the publication of UK cement market data seem problematic. Although it may make it more difficult for UK cement producers to collude it will also make it harder for related businesses (including press and industry analysts like Global Cement) to understand what is happening at any given time.

Finally, we have to ask what the effects of the Commission's suggestions might be at the start of an uncertain recovery in the UK construction market might be. According to the Minerals Production Association cement production fell from 8.5Mt in 2011 to 8Mt in 2012, the first decrease since 2009. 2013 seems set for modest growth on 2012. The implications of Commission's plans - if they happen – could be huge.

UK: The UK Competition Commission (CC) has provisionally decided that Lafarge Tarmac should sell a cement plant to increase competition in the UK cement market. The CC is also proposing to limit the flow of information and data between cement producers and to increase competition in the supply chain for ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS).

"The best way to disturb the balance of a market where producers have focused on retaining their respective market shares rather than competing is to create the opportunity for a major new entrant," said CC Deputy Chairman and Chairman of the Inquiry Group Professor Martin Cave.

In detail the CC has provisionally decided that Lafarge Tarmac should be required to choose between divesting either its Cauldon or Tunstead cement plant. The purchaser of the divested cement plant should be able to acquire a limited number of ready mixed concrete plants from Lafarge Tarmac subject to the purchaser's total internal cementitious requirement being capped at 15% of the acquired cement production capacity. The buyer would have to be approved by the CC and not be one of UK's existing cement producers.

Data currently published by the Minerals Products Association (MPA) and the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills should be delayed by no less than three months from the time period to which it refers before it can be made public. UK cement producers will also be prohibited (with a small number of specific exceptions) from providing their sales and production data to any other private sector organisation.

UK cement suppliers will be prohibited from sending generic price announcement letters to their customers. Instead, they should send letters that are specific and relevant to the customers receiving them.

Subject to further consultation on the GGBS supply chain, Hanson should divest two of its GGBS production facilities and Lafarge Tarmac should divest two of its granulated furnace slag production facilities, again to a suitable purchaser approved by the CC but not to another UK cement producer.

Responses to the CC's suggested measures will now be gathered before it publishes its final report by 17 January 2014.

UK/Ireland: Irish cement importer Eircem has told the UK's Competition Commission that 'there is no free competition' in the cement market in Europe. Managing director Peter Goode submitted the comments as part of the evidence being gathered by the UK Competition Commission in its ongoing investigation on the UK cement industry, as reported by the Irish Independent.

"The most recent act of such practices and anti competitive activity by [European Cement Producer 1] and [European Cement Producer 2] against me, my business and my family is so blatant that it defies reality and logic," said Goode in his submission to the Competition Commission.

Goode alleges that his previous company suffered anti-competitive measures from a European cement producer in 2009 when it attempted to import cement from Turkey. Further claims include an incident on a visit to a UK cement plant in 2012 when an employee of a cement producer refused to supply him with cement because it had a pre-existing agreement with another company not to supply cement to Ireland.

According to the Irish Independent, Goode previously owned Goode Concrete, which collapsed in early 2011. The company is currently attempting to sue Irish building materials manufacturer CRH for damages also related to alleged anti-competitive behaviour.

The Competition Commission's investigation on the UK aggregates, cement and ready-mix concrete market is due to be completed in late 2013 with a publication date set for December 2013. Evidence from the investigation has been published on the Competition Commission website.

India: Competition regulator the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has given its approval to the proposed 14% stake sale by Lafarge of its subsidiary Lafarge India to Baring Private Equity Asia, saying that the deal will not adversely effect competition in the country.

"The combination is not likely to have appreciable adverse effect on competition in India and therefore, the Commission hereby approves the combination under... the (Competition) Act," said the CCI in its order on 26 June 2013.

According to the regulator the deal will not cause adverse competition concerns as neither Paris Cement nor Baring or any of its portfolio companies is engaged in the business of manufacturing cement in India. Lafarge and Baring entered their sale agreement on 14 May 2013, which stated that certain actions of Lafarge India cannot be taken without the prior written consent of Paris Cement Investment Holdings.

Back in November 2012 this column asked whether the UK cement market had become more competitive following the sale of the Hope cement plant. Broadly, we thought it had. Half a year later though and it seems that the UK Competition Commission doesn't think so. On 21 May 2013 it released provisional findings that the UK's three major cement producers were failing to compete on price with each other.

Its three main points of evidence included increases in average cement prices between 2007 and 2011, rising profitability for UK producers between 2007 and 2011 and only small changes in annual market share of sales. All of these market outcomes occurred despite a 'significant' slump in demand for cement from 2007 to 2009.

The problem here is that the Competition Commission's data refers to the UK market before it took action. In 2012 it forced the sale of Lafarge's Hope cement plant as a condition of the joint-venture between Lafarge and Tarmac. Subsequently, Lafarge and Tarmac's combined cement production capacity in the UK fell from 5.15Mt/yr to 3.85Mt/yr. However, the Competition Commission has modelled Hope Construction Materials as an effective replacement of Tarmac's previous market share in its analysis. With no major change to the status quo in the UK cement industry, it feels that competition is unlikely to improve. Hence the need for further action.

It must be emphasised that the Competition Commission did not find any evidence of explicit coordination between the producers. Professor Martin Cave, Competition Commission Deputy Chairman and Chairman of the Inquiry Group, summed it up as follows: "In a highly concentrated market where the product doesn't vary, the established producers know too much about each other's businesses and have concentrated on retaining their respective market shares rather than competing to the full."

To look at just one example, it should be noted that most of the management team of Hope Construction Materials came originally from jobs at either Lafarge or Tarmac. However in Hope's defence, who else would the new company hire except seasoned industry personnel. Naturally they would want the best people possible!

With the revival of the UK construction industry hanging in the balance the Competition Commission has a tough job ahead to ensure increased competition in the future.