Displaying items by tag: International Monetary Fund

Cement shortages were being reported in the US media last week in Alabama and South Carolina. The owner of a ready-mixed concrete supplier in South Carolina was blaming it on labour and supply shortages. Dan Crosby, the president of Metrocon, told Fox News that his business could only take on 60% of the work it could normally cope with due to the issue despite demand for construction growing in the state. Meanwhile, the Alabama Concrete Industries Association said that its home state saw a 14% increase in the demand for concrete in 2021 but that a cement shortage might cause delays to projects. The association also pointed the blame at labour and supply issues. It pointed out that high demand for concrete during the winter prevented inventory being built up and then the annual cement plant maintenance breaks in the spring added to the problems. Once contractors actually secured supplies of cement they then faced further delays due to a nationwide truck driver shortage!

Graph 1: Annual rolling cement shipments in the South of the US. Source: USGS.

Data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) doesn’t especially shed light on the situation in Alabama and South Carolina. Alabama was the fifth largest cement producing state in the country in January 2022 but this is unsurprising as it’s the state with the fifth largest cement production capacity. Rolling annual data on Portland and blended cement shipments by origin show the effects of the coronavirus outbreak in the south from the start of 2020 to January 2022. Shipments took a dive in 2020 and then mostly recovered in 2021. However, Alabama, Kentucky and Tennessee saw shipments rise from 7.1Mt pre-pandemic to 7.6Mt in January 2022. South Carolina’s shipments grew from 3Mt to 3.2Mt. Regionally, the North East had a similar pattern although, unlike the South, shipments have surpassed those at the start of 2020. The Midwest and West were different with a general upwards trend over the two years, although the West softened slightly from mid-2021 onwards. Overall the US as a whole has seen its shipments grow throughout this period.

Ed Sullivan from the Portland Cement Association (PCA) told the May 2022 issue of Global Cement Magazine that the US cement sector did well in 2021 with a 4.1% year-on-year rise in sales to 104Mt. However, he flagged up supply chain problems that actually slowed growth, led by a lack of staff.

The other point along these lines that Sullivan made was that imports of cement might not necessarily be able to compensate for domestic supply issues due to global demand for shipping post-coronavirus. USGS data placed imports to the US at 13.7Mt in 2019 compared to 16.3Mt in 2021. Notably, Cemex restarted one production line in 2021 at its CPN cement plant in Sonora State in Mexico to export cement to the west of the US. In March 2022 it added that it was going to restart another line at the plant also. It’s not alone though as GCC reported in January 2022 that a line at one of its plants in Chihuahua, Mexico, was exporting cement to Texas. Sullivan reckoned that January 2022 was ‘weak’ but that it was followed by an ‘extremely strong’ February 2022. The first quarter results from Holcim and CRH seem to back this up with the former describing the period as ‘outstanding’ and the region leading its sales and earnings growth rate globally. CRH reported strong demand in central and southern regions.

As the US economy restarted following the peak of the early coronavirus waves in 2020, various supply chain issues have manifested. Staff shortages are one issue and this can also worsen other logistic problems. The south seems particularly vulnerable to all of this as it is both the country’s largest cement market and because demand has held up. In January 2022 research by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) identified several reasons for staff shortages in the US and the UK. These included increased inactivity among older workers, the so called ‘She-cession’ (where female employment has overly reduced due to coronavirus trends) and shifting worker preferences amid strong labour demand.

Staff shortages are expected to sort themselves out throughout 2022 but favourable forecast demand for cement in the US is balanced by inflationary pressure. Persistent low staffing levels could further add to inflation growth. The US cement sector may be doing well at the moment but even success carries risks.

Global Cement’s Robert McCaffrey will be giving a keynote presentation at the IEEE-PCA Cement Conference in Las Vegas on Tuesday 3 May 2022. The May 2022 issue of Global Cement Magazine, including interviews with PCA chief executive officer Mike Ireland and chief economist Ed Sullivan, is available to download now.

Cement producers in the north of Pakistan have started to increase their use of coal from Afghanistan in response to the ongoing volatility in energy markets. Research from a report by Darson Securities found that companies were already using up to 70% Afghan coal in their fuel mix with a further 20% being considered. Most of the northern producers are reported to have secured the cheaper Afghan coal for about two months of inventory, although Maple Leaf Cement was said to have four to five months of inventory. Meanwhile in the south of the country, producers were reported to be facing a tougher situation as Afghan coal costs more for them due to higher logistics charges and export orders were being reduced due to the low cost of clinker internationally. So they are focusing on the domestic market instead.

Graph 1: Cement despatches in Pakistan, 2015 – 2021. Source: All Pakistan Cement Manufacturers Association.

Data from the All Pakistan Cement Manufacturers Association (APCMA) shows that cement despatches have been steadily growing since the mid-2010s with a blip in 2020 caused by the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. The upward trend has been driven by local sales. Exports have generally grown at the same time, with more variance, but they are yet to regain the high of nearly 11Mt reported in 2009. On a rolling annual basis, local sales have remained steady since mid-2021 but exports have been slowly falling. In April 2021 they were 9.17Mt but by February 2022 they were 7.33Mt. For the February 2022 figures APCMA blamed this on the growing cost of production, rising international freight rates, mounting coal prices and a trade ban with India. On that last point for example, Pakistan-based producers exported 1.21Mt of cement to India in the 2017 – 2018 financial year before exports stopped after February 2019. Despite a brief respite in the spring of 2021 talks are still ongoing to resume trade with India.

On the corporate side the country’s largest cement producer by capacity, Lucky Cement, drew the same conclusion as the APCMA with its half-year results to 31 December 2021. Its local sales volumes were down a little but its exports were down a lot. It noted that the reason its local sales were falling but national industry local sales were up slightly was due to some competitor plants being non-operational in the previous year. However, the company managed to keep sales revenue and earnings increasing year-on-year by successfully combating growing input costs with price rises. Bestway Cement, the country’s other large producer, reported a tougher situation in the second half of 2021, with both local sales and export volumes down. This was attributed to a boom in construction activity in the second half of 2020 as Covid-19 lockdowns were eased. Demand for cement since then was said to be ‘sluggish’ due to inflation and high commodity prices. It also pinned its marked fall in exports on political and economic instability in Afghanistan. However, turnover and operating profit were both up due to higher selling prices.

Elsewhere in the sector news since the start of 2021, Pakistan’s exports to South Africa remained stymied in early 2020 due to a review of ongoing tariffs and the government decision to restrict infrastructure projects to only using locally produced cement. On the sustainability front the APCMA started to set out its decarbonisation strategy in November 2021. It may have a long way to go given that a think tank reported earlier in the year that the cement sector was the largest emitter of coal-related CO₂ emissions in the country, even more than power generation. Alongside this plenty of capacity additions have been announced. Lucky Cement started commercial cement production at its 1.2Mt/yr integrated Samawah cement plant in March 2021. Various new cement plants and upgrades to existing plants have been proposed by Bestway Cement, Cherat Cement, Fauji Cement, Kohat Cement Company, Lucky Cement and Maple Leaf Cement. Finally of note to a sector troubled by energy prices, in September 2021 the Pakistan International Bulk Terminal said it was going to upgrade its coal handling capacity to around 17Mt/yr by 2024.

Last week’s Global Cement Weekly covered Turkey. The contrasts are interesting because both of these countries have high cement exports and have raised energy concerns recently. This leads to the question of whether other cement exporters may be vulnerable to the current situation. Pakistan isn’t the only country where the cement industry is facing the negative effects of growing energy costs. This week in the sector news, Spain-based Tudela Veguín has shut down the kiln at its La Robla plant down for 10 days due to high electricity prices, Thailand-based Siam Cement Group (SCG) announced it was reviewing its investment plans and the UK-based Mineral Products Association lobbied the government on the issue.

The shift to Afghan coal by Pakistan’s cement producers is rational given the current situation. No doubt fuel buyers all over the world are doing similar things. In January 2022 the International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecast that Pakistan’s gross domestic product would grow by around 4% for 2021, 2022 and 2023 but current geopolitical events may test these estimates. Over the last year domestic cement demand has remained strong but inflation, growing input costs and the impetus to further rise prices may change this. Meanwhile, lots of new production capacity is in the pipeline and, if or when it is built, it may add additional competition pressure. This may present a problem in Pakistan if capacity utilisation levels drop but input costs keep on going up.

There has been good news from the German Cement Works Association (VDZ) this week. Following a strong start to the year, the association expects cement consumption in 2020 to remain similar to the level, 28.7Mt, reported in 2019. VDZ president Christian Knell acknowledged the difficulty in making forecasts, this year of all years, but said that the association remained positive since demand had held up so well. He noted the continued operation of construction sites, despite the local coronavirus-related lockdown from March 2020, and the ‘quick action’ of politicians.

Graph 1: German cement deliveries, 2015 – 2019: Source: German Cement Works Association (VDZ).

The year certainly started well, with a 33% year-on-year increase in domestic cement deliveries to 1.43Mt in January 2020 from 1.07Mt in January 2019. This was due in part to good weather, although it also looks good because 2019 started badly compared to 2018. Yet, the VDZ’s assessment has been supported by the results of the main producers operating in the country. HeidelbergCement reported that Germany bucked the trend of its Western and Southern Europe Group area in the first half of 2020 with a ‘positive market development’ whereas deliveries declined significantly everywhere else. Similarly, LafargeHolcim noted a ‘resilient’ performance in Germany. Buzzi Unicem released a more detailed assessment, with shipments of hydraulic binders down in April and May 2020 but then back up with a recovery in June 2020. Overall its cement plants reported a slight decline in sales for the first half of the year. Concrete production grew however, by 6% year-on-year, possibly aided by the plants that the group purchased in 2019.

Germany’s success appears to be down to two factors. The first, as Knell mentioned above, is that it was able to keep much of its construction industry open through its lockdown. Dieter Babiel, the head of Hauptverband der Deutschen Bauindustrie – the main German construction industry association - reckoned that the industry was operating at about 80% capacity in May 2020 compared to the situation in other large European countries like France, the UK, Spain and Italy where building sites totally closed at the height of local lockdowns before gradual reopening. Bauindustrie has since reported falling monthly order intake as coronavirus-effects on the general economy filter through to construction. The other reason is that the country has managed to control its outbreak better compared to other European countries. It has reported the third most cases in Europe but its fatality rate is only 4% compared to 14% in the UK, Italy and France. This has been attributed to strong public health measures and high levels of testing, particularly with respect to elderly residential care.

It’s not all plain sailing though since the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has projected a 7.8% decline in Germany’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2020. Likewise, the VDZ is predicting weakening construction markets and cement demand in the fourth quarter of 2020. It cited falling orders and requests for building permits as mounting evidence for this trend. From here a gloomier outlook is foreseen for 2021 as construction budgets for commercial and government projects are cut. At the same time uncertainty in the labour market is expected to drag down the residential market. With this in mind the VDZ is predicting cement demand to drop by 3 – 5% in 2021.

To end on an upbeat note, if the VDZ’s forecasts are accurate, then the German cement sector looks like it might weather the coronavirus-downturn better than other industries. It knows a downturn in construction is coming and it can prepare for it.

The Construction Products Association (CPA) has just forecast a 25% drop in construction output for 2020 in the UK due to Covid-19. And this is the optimistic prediction! It blamed the decline, which is said to be the sharpest ever recorded, on the country’s coronavirus-related lockdown. 60% of planned construction output was lost in April 2020 due to social distancing measures. This compares to a 6.5% decline in gross domestic product (GDP) forecast for 2020 by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in April 2020 for the UK. OneStone Consulting’s Joe Harder in his Covid-19 Impact Analysis CIC 2025 report has forecast a 12.7% decrease in European cement production. Readers should keep in mind that construction output, GDP and cement production are all connected but not necessarily directly related.

Further details of note from the CPA include a direct link between the strength of lockdown measures and work lost, as well as differences between types of activity. So, for example, more construction output (in percentage terms) was reported lost in Scotland, where tighter lockdown measures were implemented. On the latter point, more output was lost in residential construction compared to non-residential with a similar trend reported in the repair, maintenance and improvement sector, again worsened in the residential part of this market. The sector that suffered the least was non-residential repair and maintenance as work on, currently, mostly deserted buildings and infrastructure was prioritised. One example of this may have been Aggregate Industries, the UK subsidiary of LafargeHolcim, which said this week that it had completed major works on the A14, a major regional trunk road, ahead of schedule. It didn’t directly make the link in its press release but quiet roads would have helped.

The CPA is touting the now-familiar range of letter-shaped economic recession shapes in the report, including ‘V’, ‘W’ and the dreaded ‘U’. However, the CPA’s Economics Director Noble Francis was more confident that infrastructure projects would bounce back fastest due to favourable investment cycles in utilities, government support for its high-speed railway scheme HS2 and, “greater ability to implement safe distancing for workers on larger sites.”

That last point ties in nicely with the operational guidance that the Mineral Product Association (MPA), the UK’s trade association for the heavy building material sector in the UK, released last week. This is all crucial information on a comprehensive and detailed scale along the lines released in other countries.

Much of this will be becoming second nature to cement industry workers and/or will be familiar to anyone who has watched US consultant John Kline discuss these issues on Global Cement Live. Yet there are some points worth discussing here such as ‘Avoid Distraction.’ This one’s all about remembering to keep in mind existing health and safety practices alongside all the coronavirus-related ones. All the usual health and safety regulations and advice remain in place and in some ways become even more important as there may be fewer staff working on socially-distanced sites, or first responders may be otherwise busy elsewhere. Another point from the MPA’s guidance is to ‘Provide More Time,’ which acknowledges that working with coronavirus measures will require more time. Other implications from a business changed by coronavirus are things like notifying the police when sites are closed and considering further security for such sites to minimise risk of theft. A lot of this stuff seems obvious but it’s easy to miss things.

For a recent review of the UK cement industry readers should refer to Edwin Trout’s feature in the June 2020 issue of Global Cement Magazine. One change since it was published has been Cemex’s proposal to mothball its 0.8Mt/yr South Ferriby integrated plant in Lincolnshire. The cement producer says it is not related to coronavirus but if the CPA’s predictions are accurate then it will make it that much harder to keep the plant open.

Everyone’s hoping for a ‘V’ shaped recovery from the coronavirus downturn in the UK and everywhere else around the world. Boots on the ground operating advice like that issued by the MPA and others is part of how the construction materials industries can work towards achieving this.

Yesterday, on 14 April 2020, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecast a 3% gross domestic product (GDP) growth contraction in 2020 due to negative economic effects from the coronavirus outbreak and its containment. Most regions around the world may experience negative growth in 2020 with exceptions only in so-called Emerging and Developing Asia and Low-income Developing Countries. This is just one projection among many coming out at the moment but the prognosis is downward. This begs the questions: how will cement companies cope?

Markets for building materials are not going to disappear in these conditions but demand looks likely to be reduced. Added to this, an industry that’s been facing increasing production overcapacity over the years may be challenged by additional competition effects. Here we will look at the debt profile of some of the major multinational cement producers outside of China. Please note that this is a cursory examination of corporate debt that only looks at simple financial indicators. Company financial officers want to present themselves in best possible light and will have alternatives that point to their strengths. For a detailed view we refer readers to the credit rating agencies and the companies’ published financial information directly.

Graph 1: Net debt and EBITDA for selected multinational cement companies in 2019. Source: Company financial reports and investor presentations. Note, Conversion for reporting currencies to US$, HeidelbergCement uses Result from Current Operations Before Depreciation and Amortisation (RCOBD) and UltraTech Cement results from 2018 – 2019 financial year.

Graph 1 presents a comparison between net debt and earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) in real terms. The bigger the gap between debt and earnings then the more one starts to wonder how it can be repaid. One feature to note in this graph is the size of the debt of the three largest producers – LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement and Cemex – despite the fact that the companies are of different sizes. Cemex’s high debt to earnings ratio has been much commented on previously following its acquisition of Rinker just before the financial crash in 2007 and 2008. Unfortunately though, despite strenuous mitigation efforts, it remains prominent. Other positions to note are those of Buzzi Unicem and Dangote Cement, which have higher earnings than debts. These are envious positions to be in.

Graph 2: Net debt/EBITDA and EBITDA Margin for selected multinational cement companies in 2019. Source and notes as in Graph 1.

Graph 2 shows the ratio of net debt and EBITDA and the EBITDA Margin, a company’s earnings divided by its revenue. This graph better shows the relationship between debt and earnings. This can be seen well in a comparison between LafargeHolcim and HeidelbergCement. The latter has higher debts with respect to its earnings. Its debt jumped in 2016 following its acquisition of Italcementi. LafargeHolcim’s debts ballooned followed its formation by merger in 2015 but this was in line with the jump in its equity. Where it struggled was with slow earnings in the years afterwards. However, bold divestments in South-East Asia in 2018 and 2019 appear to have fixed this.

Other companies to watch in the higher Net debt/EBITDA category include India’s UltraTech Cement and both of the large Brazilian multinationals, Votorantim and InterCement. In recent years UltraTech Cement has been busy buying up other cement producers in India. The difference between the Brazilian companies may reflect the fallout from their fight to buy Cimpor back in 2012. InterCement and its parent company Camargo Corrêa won the battle to acquire the Portuguese company but Votorantim was given selected international assets outside of Brazil. Unfortunately, the Brazilian market then collapsed and Camargo Corrêa has reportedly been trying to sell some or all of its cement assets ever since.

The other financial indicator in Graph 2 is EBITDA margin or earnings/operating profit as a percentage of revenue. Higher is generally seen as better here in comparison to other companies in the same sector. Note how LafargeHolcim is ahead of HeidelbergCement and Cemex, possibly due to its cost cutting and synergies since the merger. InterCement also has a relatively high EBITDA margin, boosted by a pickup by the Brazilian economy in 2019. Again, Buzzi Unicem and Dangote Cement stand out. Both of these are public companies but are associated with family or individual ownership, although in very different markets. Neither has really indulged in any large-scale acquisitions in recent years. Dangote Cement has been steadily expanding but through building its own plants and distribution networks.

We’ve not mentioned CRH as its figures seem ‘average’ compared to the other cement producers discussed here. Average is of course relative for one of the world’s biggest building materials manufacturers with a net of debt of US$7.4bn in 2019! Yet, despite battles with activist investors over board member pay aside, CRH might be the rare producer that knows when to stop expanding. Notably in 2018 after an expansion phase, including acquisitions of Ash Grove Cement and LafargeHolcim assets previously, it publicly decided in 2018 to take a pause. There may be weaknesses in the company’s balance sheets yet to be revealed but they are not apparent using these metrics.

In summary, we’ve focused on corporate acquisitions here as the main source of debt in cement producers. This is simplistic but timing is everything when taking on a large amount of debt. Cemex is still carrying the scars from buying Rinker over a decade ago and InterCement and HeidelbergCement, to a lesser extent, are ones to watch through the next bad patch. Other things to consider are a general move to a more regional model for these producers away from a global one. UltraTech Cement’s focus on the Indian sub-continent or Dangote Cement’s work in Africa are examples of this. This approach could go wrong if the sole regions they operate in suffer disproportionately from the economic fallout from coronavirus. Or, if any producer, even one with high debts, has the good fortune to be present in a territory that suffers less from the downturn it may benefit. On a final note, it is worth mentioning that government data reports that China’s domestic cement production capacity utilisation in the two-week period ending on 10 April 2020 bounced back to 95% following the relaxation of the lockdown.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) took on direct implications for the international cement industry this week when an Italian vendor infected with the virus visited Lafarge Africa in Ogun state, Nigeria. The cement producer said that it had ‘immediately’ started contact tracing and started isolation, quarantine and disinfection protocols. This included initiating medical protocols at its Ewekoro integrated plant, although local press reported the unit’s production lines were still open. Around 100 people were thought to have had contact with the man.

Global Cement has been covering the epidemic since early February 2020 when the virus’ effect on the construction industry in China started to become evident. First, an industry event CementTech was postponed, financial analysts started forecasting negative financial consequences for producers and plants started going into coronavirus-related maintenance or suspension cycles. Then at least one plant started to dispose of clinical waste and now China National Building Material Group (CNBM) is considering how to restart operations at scale. Also, this week Hong Kong construction companies reportedly laid off 50,00 builders due to a lack of cement due to the on-going production suspension in China.

The major cement companies have identified that their first business risk from coronavirus comes from simply not having the staff to make building materials. LafargeHolcim’s chief executive officer Jan Jenisch summed up the group’s action in its annual financial results for 2020 this week when he said, “We are taking all necessary measures to protect the health of our employees and their families.” Other major cement producers that Global Cement has contacted have placed travel restrictions for staff and reduced access to production facilities.

The next risk for cement companies comes from a drop in economic activity. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) forecasts a global 0.5% year-on-year fall in real gross domestic product (GDP) growth to 2.4%, with China and India suffering the worst declines in GDP growth at around 1%. The global figure is the worst since the -0.1% rate reported by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2009. The OECD blamed the disease control measures in China, as well as the direct disruption to global supply chains, weaker final demand for imported goods and services and regional declines in international tourism and business travel. This forecast is contingent on the epidemic peaking in China in the first quarter of 2020 and new cases of the virus in other countries being sporadic and contained. So far the latter does not seem to have happened and the OECD’s ‘domino’ scenario predicts a GDP reduction of 1.5%. All of this is likely to drag on construction activity and demand for cement and concrete for some time to come.

Moving to cement markets and production, demand is likely to be slowed as countries implement various levels of isolation and quarantine leading to reduced residential demand for buildings directly and as workforces are restricted. Business and infrastructure projects may follow as economies slow and governments refocus spending respectively.

The UK government, for example, is basing its coronavirus action plan on an outbreak lasting four to six months. This could potentially happen in many countries throughout 2020. This has the potential to create a rolling effect of disruption as different nations are hit. Assuming China has passed the peak of its local epidemic then its producers are likely to report reduced income in the first quarter of 2020. The effect may even be reduced somewhat due to the existing winter peak shifting measures, whereby production is shut down to reduce pollution. Elsewhere, cement companies in the northern hemisphere may see their busy summer months affected if the virus spreads. The effect on balance sheets may be visible with indebted companies and/or those with more exposure to affected areas disproportionately affected. The wildcard here is whether coronavirus transmits as easily in warmer weather as it does in the cooler winter months. In this case there may be a difference, generally speaking, between the global north and south. Exceptions to watch could be cooler southern places such as New Zealand, Argentina and Chile. Shortages, as mentioned above in Taiwan, potentially should be short term, owing to global overcapacity of cement production, as end users find supplies from elsewhere.

The cement industry is also likely to encounter disruption to its supply chains. Major construction projects in South Asia are already reporting delays as Chinese workers have failed to return following quarantine restrictions after the Chinese New Year celebrations. As other countries suffer uncontrolled outbreaks then similar travel restrictions may follow. Global Cement has yet to see any examples of materials in the cement industry supply chain being affected. On the production side, raw mineral supply tends to be local but fuels, like coal, often travel further. Fuel markets may prove erratic as larger consumers cut back and suppliers like the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) react by restricting production.

On the maintenance side cement plants need a wide array of parts such as refractories, motors, lubricants, gears, wear parts for mills, ball bearings and so forth. Some of these may have more complicated supply chain routes than they used to have 30 years ago. On the supplier side any new or upgrade plant project is vulnerable if necessary parts are delayed by a production halt, logistics delayed and/or staff are prevented from visiting work sites. Chinese suppliers’ reliance on using their own workers, for example, might well be a hindrance here until (or if) international quarantine rules are normalised. Other suppliers’ weak points in their supply chains may become exposed in turn. This would benefit suppliers with sufficiently robust chains.

Chinese reductions in NO₂ emissions in relation to the coronavirus industrial shutdown have been noted in the press. A wider global effect could well be seen too. This could potentially pose problems to CO₂ emissions trading schemes around the world as CO₂ prices fall and carbon credits abound. This might also have deleterious effects on carbon capture and storage (CCS) development if it becomes redundant due to low CO₂ pricing. In the longer-term this might undesirable, as by the time the CO₂ prices pick up again we will be that much nearer to the 2050 sustainability deadlines.

COVID-19 is a new pandemic in all but name with major secondary outbreaks in South Korea, Iran and Italy growing fast and cases being reported in many other countries. The bad news though is that individual countries and international bodies have to decide how to balance the economic damage disease control will cause, versus the effects of letting the disease run unchecked. Yet as more information emerges on how to tackle coronavirus, the good news is that most people will experience flu-like symptoms and nothing more. Chinese action shows that it can be controlled through public health measures while a vaccine is being developed.

Until then, frequent handwashing is a ‘given’ and many people and organisations are running risk calculations on aspects of what they do. It may seem flippant but even basic human interaction such as the handshake needs to be reconsidered for the time being.

More movement in Italy this week with Buzzi Unicem’s purchase of three cement plants from HeidelbergCement. Buzzi acquired the Testi integrated cement plant at Greve and the Borgo San Dalmazzo and Arquata Scrivia grinding plants in Piedmont. No value for the transaction was disclosed but HeidelbergCement trumpeted that it was ‘well on our way’ to reach its target of Euro1.5bn of disposals by the end of 2020. This follows last week’s purchase of Cemitaly's Spoleto cement plant in Perugia by Colacem. Cemitaly, in case readers don’t know, is another of HeidelbergCement’s Italian subsidiaries.

Upon completion of these deals, Buzzi Unicem will own 10 integrated plants and five grinding plants in Italy. It continues the company’s consolidation drive in Italy from mid-2017 when it bought Cementizillo and two of its integrated plants for the knock down price of up to Euro125m.

The two other leading cement producers are now Germany’s HeidelbergCement with its local subsidiaries (led by Italcementi) and Colacem. HeidelbergCement has 10 integrated plants and 10 grinding plant. Colacem has seven integrated plants and one grinding plant. All three companies have integrated production capacities of around 9 – 14Mt/yr. Since 2012 the market has shifted from six major producers to three. Sacci, Cementir and Cemenzillo have left the field following acquisitions by their competitors. Italcementi was taken over by HeidelbergCement in 2016.

Graph 1: Cement production in Italy, 2006 – 2017. Source: Italian Cement Association (AITEC).

Data from the Italian Cement Association (AITEC) shows that the impetus for this consolidation trend was the reduction in Italian cement production to 19.3Mt in 2017 from a high of 47.9Mt in 2006. Despite this though the country still has a total production capacity of 37.7Mt/yr, according to Global Cement Directory 2019 data, giving it an utilisation rate of just over 50%. Production picked up again in the north and central regions of Italy in 2017 but this was insufficient to counter declines in the south and Italy’s islands. Exports have held steady in this time at around 2 – 3Mt/yr but this represents a doubling share of production from 5% in 2006 to 10% in 2017. Production has been steadily dwindling year-on-year since 2006 but domestic consumption rallied a little to 18.7Mt in 2017.

The Italian government instituted its ‘Industry 4.0’ policy in early 2017 to boost competitiveness. This included modest growth forecasts of 1%. International Monetary Fund (IMF) data shows that the country managed gross domestic product (GDP) growth of 0.9% in 2018. Yet, Buzzi Unicem reported like-for-like net sales contraction of 0.9% in 2018. HeidelbergCement was more circumspect in its reporting on Italy for 2018 but it did describe a ‘moderate’ increase in sales volumes of cement excluding its acquisitions.

With the IMF diagnosing the Italian economy as ‘weak’ and cutting its growth forecast to 0.1% in 2019 the prospects aren’t looking encouraging for the cement sector. AITEC data placed cement consumption at 309t/capita in 2017. This is on the low side for Western European standards suggesting that, although more consolidation could be coming, the market may also be down too. Its not great news for cement producers but the Italian market is edging ever closer to recovery.

The Federación Interamericana del Cemento (FICEM) held its 2018 technical congress in Panama City last week and was attended by Global Cement. We’ll run a full write-up of the event in the October 2018 issue of Global Cement Magazine. The short version is that the conference was technically good but, from our perspective, it could have done with more regional analysis. Given that the event is for the local industry this is not a big issue as most of the delegates will know their own markets inside out and many were happy to discuss just this when asked. Likewise, FICEM’s in-house publication also included plenty of local data.

The nearest the presentations came to this was a global overview of the cement industry by Arnaud Pinatel of On Field Investment Research ahead of a market report the analysts are about to release. Although it covered the global cement industry the key local news was that the Latin American sector’s production capacity had grown by 3% from 2010 to 2018 but that prices had fallen in this time. The forecast suggested that cement sales volumes were expected to grow by 3% in 2019 - supported by Brazil, Peru and Bolivia - but that prices were also expected to fall by 1%, mainly due to issues in Argentina.

That last point is especially interesting over the last week because the Argentine cement body, the Asociación de Fabricantes de Cemento Portland (AFCP), released its figures last week to reveal that cement despatches rose by 4.2% year-on-year for the first eight months of 2018. However, at the same time the general news broke that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was providing an emergency loan to support the country’s economy. The government was keen to shore up confidence in the economy and attributed the growth in the cement sector to the ‘most ambitious infrastructure plan in history.’

Only last year in 2017 the industry was riding a construction boom with cement shortages, new production capacity announced and the initial public offering of Loma Negra. Bailouts from the IMF don’t fit this picture of the poster boy for the South American construction industry. And, if a financial correction is pending, the new capacity that has been ordered may arrive at a bad time. This is a pretty worrying situation.

Meanwhile, across the Uruguay River into Brazil something long expected and hopefully more encouraging has occurred: the acquisition of cement plants. Italy’s Buzzi Unicem revealed that it had struck a deal to buy a 50% stake in the Brazilian company BCPAR from Grupo Ricardo Brennand for Euro150m. The arrangements cover two integrated plants: one 2.4Mt/yr unit at Sete Lagoas in Minas Gerais and a 1.7Mt/yr unit at Pitimbu in Paraíba. Buzzi has also added an option to buy the other half of the business until 2025.

It’s hard to place a value on the sale, but it looks as if Buzzi has picked up the capacity for just under US$100/t, subject to future variation on how well the company does. At that price though this a low figure and a bargain for Buzzi. Given the pain the Brazilian cement industry had been through in recent years some form of traction is welcome. Unfortunately, Grupo Ricardo Brennand has surely lost money on the deal given that the two plants were commissioned in 2011 and 2015 respectively. The complexity of the financial arrangements suggest that Ricardo Brennand is fighting to stay in the game if and when the recovery comes. If Buzzi has moved in then this suggests that it thinks it will make their money back and that it reckons that the bottom of the construction industry trough has been reached. A Brazilian take on this situation would be fascinating.

With these kinds of events happening the same week as the FICEM technical congress it really shows how vibrant and varied the region’s cement industry is. Next year’s conference will surely be even more interesting as market events in Brazil, Argentina and other countries develop.

The Greek debt crisis directly hit the local cement industry on Tuesday 30 June 2015 when Titan Cement reported that it was unable to pay a dividend to its shareholders. The leading local cement producer blamed the capital controls introduced by the government.

It is worth looking at the effects on the domestic cement industry as the Eurozone bureaucracy and the Greek government play 'chicken' with each other while Greece starts the default process, having failed to pay the latest International Monetary Fund (IMF) payment on 30 June 2015. Greece will now join a group, possibly even more select than the European Union, of countries that have failed to pay back the IMF, including current defaulters like Sudan and Zimbabwe.

A better comparison might be made with Argentina which defaulted upon its foreign debts in 2001. Its construction industry fell by 12% year-on-year in 2001 and by a further 30% in 2002. Cement consumption and cement production utilisation rates hit 23% in 2002. One key difference with Greece is that the country has had major financial difficulties for far longer than Argentina. Argentina ran into financial depression in 1998 and defaulted in 2001. Greece ran into financial trouble following the 2008 financial crisis and then received its first bailout in 2010.

As the capital controls show, even initial responses to the financial situations are impacting upon the standard transactions a limited company conducts. The Financial Times ran an article in May 2015 examining the potential effects on businesses of a debt default and Greek exit from the Eurozone (Grexit). In short, business and commerce will continue where possible reacting to whatever comes their way. For example, an olive oil producer reported switching to exports to make profits. Crucially though, another company interviewed, a construction contractor, worried about potential cuts to government or EU-led infrastructure projects.

As Titan reported in its first quarter results for 2015, its Greek market has been dependent on road building. In February 2014 Titan Cement reported its first improved operating results in seven years followed by profit in 2014 as a whole. The other major cement producers, Lafarge subsidiary Heracles General Cement and Italcementi subsidiary Halyps Cement, reported an improved construction market in 2014 with rising cement volumes. However, it was noted by Lafarge that it was developing exports to 'optimise kiln utilisation.' Titan also noted the benefits of exports in its first quarter report for 2015, focusing on a strengthening US Dollar versus the Euro. Given on-going events, one suspects there is going to be a lot more 'development' of this kind.

To set some sense of scale of the crisis Jim O'Neill, former head of economics at Goldman Sachs, famously calculated that, at the height of its growth, China created an economy the size of Greece's every three months. What happens next is down to the crystal balls of economists, although the path of least resistance now seems to be pointing at further default, departure from the Eurozone and Euro and further significant financial pain for Greece.

It looks likely that the local construction market will stay subdued and exports will offer a lifeline. How much the EU is prepared to let Greece default on its bills and then try and undercut its own over-capacity cement industries remains to be seen. However, since the main cement producers in Greece are all multinational outfits, it will afford them some flexibility in their strategy in coping with the fallout. Meanwhile a cement production capacity of around 14Mt/yr for a population of 11m suggests over capacity by European standards. If exports can't help then the situation looks grim.

UPDATE: Here is Global Cement's previous take on Greece from June 2012