Displaying items by tag: LafargeHolcim

2017 has started more uncertainly for the US cement industry than 2016 did according to the latest data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Cement shipment data from just two months, January and February 2017, can only present a limited impression of the state of the industry. Yet the key trend to look for in Graph 1 is the growth in Midwestern US states against a decline in the Western ones. Previously in 2016 this region’s shipments sunk below those in the West in December and didn’t overtake them until the spring. This time round they’ve stuck closely and overtaken them already in February 2017.

Graph 1: Portland and blended cement shipments by US Census Bureau region for 2016 to February 2017. Source: USGS.

The Midwest’s cement shipments jumped by 21% year-on-year to 2.2Mt for those first two months. Buzzi Unicem concurred with this picture in the Midwest with its first quarter financial results this week, reporting a boost in deliveries in the region. HeidelbergCement agreed, reporting sales volumes increases in the north of the country and a decrease in the West. In that region the USGS data shows an 8% fall in shipments to 2.2Mt. HeidelbergCement blamed heavy rain and flooding in California and Oregon as the cause of the problems. Another potential reason that the USGS hints at are increasing imports of cement that it says have been rising faster than sales. For example, imports of cement to the US as a whole grew by 23.9% year-on-year to 0.81Mt in February 2017.

Overall though the situation for the larger cement producers has been subdued. Many of them blamed good weather in the first quarter of 2016 giving them a hard quarter to measure against in 2017. For example, LafargeHolcim’s sales volumes of cement fell by 4.5% in North America although it did report sales growth off the back of cement pricing and cost controls. HeidelbergCement may have looked good on paper following its integration of the Italcementi/Essroc assets but its cement volumes only grew by 1% in the period. Cemex too reported a similar scenario with falling sales volumes of 5% but growing sales revenue.

To put this in perspective, as the Portland Cement Association’s (PCA) chief economist Ed Sullivan says in the May 2017 issue of Global Cement Magazine, cement production in the US grew in 2016 and it is expected to continue growing in 2017 and 2018. Just like the start of 2016 (see GCW251) the potential for US construction growth in the year ahead is a quietly confident one but it isn’t assured.

Cemex points out that housing starts rose by 8% in the first quarter of 2017, as did construction spending in the industrial and commercial sector. However, it says that infrastructure spending fell by 9% in February 2017. Indeed this last point is an important one given that one of the major Trump campaign pledges in the 2016 presidential campaign was to build more infrastructure. As commentators in Washington DC including the PCA have asked: where is the Bill? Rightly, the PCA are not letting the lawmakers forget this during ‘Infrastructure week’ as the issue is discussed. The US cement industry needs this.

For further information on the US cement industry take a look at the May 2017 issue of Global Cement Magazine

Today HeidelbergCement publishes its financial results for the first quarter of 2017, giving us an idea of how the year is shaping out for the major cement producers outside of China. Looking at graphs 1 and 2 below of cement production volumes and sales revenue gives the initial impression of a reversal of fortunes for the two leading multinational companies. LafargeHolcim’s production and sales are declining as HeidelbergCement races to catch up, boosted by its acquisition of Italcementi in 2016.

This interpretation would be misleading, however, given that LafargeHolcim has been steadily whittling down its assets to become more profitable and because HeidelbergCement has just taken on a raft of production units. The real figures to look at might be the like-for-like changes with adjustments made for currency, consolidation effects and suchlike. Under these conditions each of the three leading cement producers, with the addition of Cemex, have reported stagnant cement sales in the period. Yet the surprise comes from an analogous look at sales. LafargeHocim and Cemex both reported sales revenue increases of 5 – 6% on a like-for-like basis, whilst HeidelbergCement reported no change. This is further backed up by operating earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) figures that rose significantly on a like-for-like basis for LafargeHolcim at 8.8%, more modestly at 2% for Cemex but fell by 3% for HeidelbergCement.

Graph 1: Cement sales volumes at selected multinational producers in Q1 2016 and Q1 2017. Sources: company reports.

Graph 2: Sales revenue at selected multinational producers in Q1 2016 and Q1 2017. Sources: company reports.

The tragedy of the picture above appears to be that Eric Olsen, the chief executive officer of LafargeHolcim, has started to turn the company around following the merger between Lafarge and Holcim in 2015, just as he is leaving the company. This week Olsen denied that his departure was related to the Syria scandal but that it was related to ‘tensions’ at the group. The lesson that HeidlebergCement can take from this is that enlarging a building materials company in a supressed global market requires decisive action to maintain profitability. Certainly, if it doesn’t go HeidelbergCement’s way in future months and years then the stability of its management and major shareholders may become apparent. Although it doesn’t mention internal matters, HeidelbergCement does flag up higher geopolitical and macroeconomic risks in its outlook for 2017 as well as a ‘shift of political measures towards protectionism.’ That last one is potentially bad news for a multinational cement producer looking to move excess clinker around as it downsizes towards profitability.

Of the rest of the producers included in the graphs above Dangote Cement is worth some attention. The production and sales figures show a company evolving from a national player into an international one. Challenged by economic problems and a market contraction at home in Nigeria the company is exploding internationally in sub-Saharan Africa. Roughly, it sold a third of its cement outside of Nigeria in the period but only made a quarter of its revenue outside of its home turf. This has interesting implications for the international future of the company. However, it will be a big moment for the firm once it finally builds a plant in Nepal outside of Africa.

Italy’s Buzzi Unicem and the Brazilian operators Votorantim and InterCement are due to release their first quarter results in the coming weeks which will flesh out the international picture. Already there are lots of fascinating regional trends emerging that require discussion, such as the Philippines that we looked at last week and a ‘back to business’ feeling in China. Next week in the run up the IEEE/PCA Cement Industry Technical Conference in Calgary, Canada we’ll look at the US.

Nigeria: Mallam Suleiman Yahyah has resigned as chairman from AshakaCem. Yahyah joined the board of directors of the subsidiary of LafargeHolcim in 2010 and became its chairman in 2015.

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.

LafargeHolcim’s investigation into its conduct in Syria claimed its biggest scalp so far this week with the shock resignation of chief executive officer (CEO) Eric Olsen. His decision landed with the publication of the group’s investigation into the conduct of the legacy Lafarge operations in the country in 2013 and 2014. As per the initial findings of the investigation that were released in March 2017, it confirmed that selected personnel had engaged in dealings with terrorists in connection to one of its cement plants in the country during 2013 until the unit closed in September 2014. The board decided that Olsen had no connection or even awareness of the misconduct. However, he decided to quit anyway in order to restore ‘serenity’ to the company.

In its latest public statement on the investigation, LafargeHolcim outlines five weaknesses with its compliance led by improper payments related to Lafarge Syria’s security and supply chain. It then goes on to list a failure of line management, inadequate controls over expenses and a failure to detect improper payments and improperly recorded payments. It’s all presented as ‘chaos reigned’ or wayward staff in tough circumstances trying to do their muddled best for the company. Unfortunately for this narrative, selected members of group management were aware of the situation and appeared to have done nothing about it. This then begs the question: who knew what when?

Olsen may have been exonerated by the board on his departure but he was Lafarge’s Executive Vice-President of Operations for Lafarge in 2014. If he didn’t know what was going on in Syria during his watch then he wasn’t doing his job properly or it was being hidden from him. The head of Lafarge itself at the time, Bruno Lafont, might also have been a viable target for discipline but he decided to stand down from the board of LafargeHolcim in early April 2017. No doubt other former members of the Lafarge management team may bear more responsibility. LafargeHolcim’s implementation of its remedial measures may turn up more culprits, as may the on-going criminal complaints process continues in France.

French newspaper Le Monde, the newspaper that originally broke the story, is probably on the money with its assessment that Olsen’s departure is actually the continuation of the boardroom battle between the board and its shareholders that has raged since before Lafarge and Holcim formally merged. Bruno Lafont was originally lined up to become the CEO of the new company until Lafarge’s worsening financial position compared to Holcim’s prompted a backlash from Holcim shareholders. Le Monde describes how LafargeHolcim’s shareholders include four prominent billionaires: Switzerland’s Thomas Schmidheiny, Belgium’s Albert Frère, Canada’s Paul Desmarais and Egypt’s Nassef Sawiris. Schmidheiny, readers may remember, was one of the principal actors who sunk Lafont’s bid to be CEO back in early 2015.

Placed in this context, Olsen’s departure might seem forced, especially if he had no connection to the debacle in Syria. LafargeHolcim has faced a tough couple of years following its formation with consistently falling sales revenue. Asset divestments and cuts have been the cure as the group struggled to find its new size. Yet, the group saw its adjusted operating earning before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) start to rise in 2016 suggesting that the remedial action was starting to work. LafargeHolcim’s management and shareholders will be acutely aware of its performance so far in 2017 ahead of the public release of its first quarter results in early May 2017. Under these circumstances it seems unlikely that serenity will be restored to the upper echelons of LafargeHolcim any time soon.

Switzerland: The board of directors of LafargeHolcim will nominate Patrick Kron for election as a new board member at the group’s upcoming Annual General Meeting on 3 May 2017. At the same time Philippe Dauman and Alexander Gut have taken the decision not to stand for re-election. Bruno Lafont, currently co-chairman of the board of directors, has also stated previously that he will not stand for re-election. Following the election of the nominees, the board of directors will reduce in size to 12 members from 14 at present.

Kron, a French national who was born in 1953, is a graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique and the Paris Ecole des Mines, France. He began his career at the French Industry Ministry in 1979 before joining the Pechiney group in 1984. In 1993, he became member of the executive committee of the Pechiney group and was chairman and chief executive officer of Carbone Lorraine from 1993 to 1997. From 1995 to 1997, he ran Pechiney’s Food and Health Care Packaging Sector and held the position of chief operating officer of the American National Can Company in Chicago, US. From 1998 to 2002, Kron was chairman of the executive board of Imerys. He has been a director of Alstom since July 2001 and he was appointed chief executive officer of Alstom in January 2003, and then chairman and chief executive officer in March 2003, a position he held until January 2016 when he set up Patrick Kron - Conseils & Investissements.

Nigeria: Adepeju Adebajo has resigned as an executive director of Lafarge Africa. Adebajo was the Managing Director, Wapco Operations and then Managing Director, Geo-Cycle and Project Management Office at Lafarge Africa. Her resignation from Lafarge follows her appointment as the Honourable Commissioner for Agriculture in Ogun State.

The publication of LafargeHolcim’s annual financial results for 2016 this week starts to give us a review of the year as a whole for the multinational cement producers. Of the larger producers, CNBM, Anhui Conch and Votorantim are expected to make their releases in April 2016, so we’ll focus here on the available data from LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement, Cemex and BuzziUnicem, with UltraTech Cement included for some regional variety.

Graph 1: Sales revenue from multinational cement producers in 2015 and 2016 (Euro millions). Source: Company financial reports.

As can be seen in Graph 1 currency exchange effects have caused problems for producers’ sales revenues, with LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement and Cemex all reporting falling sales on a direct comparison. Subsequently like-for-like adjustments have cropped up repeatedly on balance sheets to try and present a more investor-friendly picture, although even this has still seen LafargeHolcim and HeidelbergCement report small declines. In this sense it’s a little unfair to include India’s UtraTech Cement, given that the bulk of its business is in just one country. Operating in just one country though has its own risks, one of which we’ll discuss below.

Unsurprisingly, given the poor sales, the focus for the multinationals has generally been on earnings measures such as operating earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA). Here, LafargeHolcim and Cemex have done far better as they have streamlined their businesses. For example, LafargeHolcim’s operating EBITDA rose by 12.9% year-on-year to Euro4.895bn in 2016.

Graph 2: Cement sales volumes from multinational cement producers in 2015 and 2016 (Mt). Source: Company financial reports.

Graph 2 looks at cement sales volumes. Most of the producers have made small gains or losses in 2016 with the stark exception of LafargeHolcim. Its cement sales fell by 12.9% to 233Mt in 2016. More alarmingly, for the fourth quarter of 2016 LafargeHolcim blamed an increased rate of declining cement sales volumes on demonetisation in India, tough trading conditions in Indonesia and a unusually good year (in 2015) to compare itself against in the US.

On that point about India, UltraTech may not have released any sales volumes figures but other larger Indian producers have experienced problems with the government’s decision to remove certain banknotes from circulation in November 2016. A report by HDFC Securities this week suggests that cement volumes fell by 13% year-on-year in January 2017 following a 9% decline in December 2016. The country may be facing its first decline in cement sales volumes since 2001. This is squarely down to government policy.

On a regional basis probably the most worrying theme has been an apparent slowdown in the US towards the end of the year. As mentioned above LafargeHolcim has blamed it on a good previous year and Cemex concurred. Buzzi Unicem also reported the same trend but didn’t attribute it to anything in paticular. President Donald Trump’s push for US$1tr investment on infrastructure in the US should help to reverse this along with anything that happens with his Mexican border wall plans.

The other area to pay attention to is Indonesia. Both LafargeHolcim and HeidelbergCement reported tough trading here prompted by production overcapacity. Locally, Semen Indonesia said this week that its sales revenue fell by 3% to US$1.95bn in 2016 and it still has new cement plants to be commissioned in 2017.

The overall picture for 2016 from these cement producers appears to be one of companies treading water and making savings as their sales were battered. As mentioned previously (The global cement industry in 2016, Global Cement Magazine, December 2016) the geographic spread of assets the multinationals own doesn’t seem to be protecting them from world events as well as they once did. On the plus side northern Europe seemed to pick up or at least hold steady in 2016 but various political shocks such as the UK departure from the European Union and elections in France and Germany may scupper this. In a similar vein India remains one of the key markets but government policy has potentially dented its growth this year. In the US cement volumes may be slowing but Donald Trump is riding to the rescue! With this continued high level of potentially disruptive events cement producers are probably hoping for a quiet year in 2017.

A couple of news stories from Australia this week give us a reason to look at the country’s cement industry. All the main producers have now released their preliminary reports for the second half of 2016, with the exception of LafargeHolcim, one of the joint owners of Cement Australia. Essentially, the picture is mixed from two of the three main producers - Adelaide Brighton and Boral - with falling sales revenues but growing sales in the east. In mid-2016 the Australian Industry Group Construction Outlook survey predicted that the infrastructure, commercial and residential sectors would start to recover in the second half of 2016 leading to an upturn in 2017, although falling mining and heavy engineering construction was expected to continue to contrast in 2016.

The local market is split in clinker production terms with most of the producers (relatively) concentrated in the south and east of the country. Cement Australia leads in cement production capacity with 2.8Mt/yr or 42% of the country's production base from two integrated plants. Adelaide Brighton then comes next with 2.3Mt/yr or 35% from three plants and Boral follows with 1.5Mt/yr from one plant since the closure of clinker production at its Waum Ponds Plant in Victoria in 2012. The cement grinding plant situation is more varied with Adelaide Brighton's Northern Cement plant in the Northern Territory and BGC Cement plant in Western Australia amongst the country's 12 units, according to Global Cement Directory 2017 data. This total also includes a few slag cement grinding plants such as the Australian Steel Mill Services' plant and the Cement Australia-Ecocem plant that are both in Port Kembla.

Adelaide Brighton reported that its sales volumes of cement were down in 2016 due to major declines in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Here, volumes had fallen by around 20% year-on-year. Unfortunately, a revival in southern and eastern Australia in the second half of the year wasn’t enough to stem the tide of poor sales. Power supply issues in Southern Australia also caused disruptions at both the company’s own plants and at those of its customers, leading to reduced sales. The cement producer also said that its import volumes had fallen by 2Mt due to lower sales in Western Australia and the Northern Territory and that import costs had increased due to a drop in the value of the Australian Dollar. Adelaide Brighton's reliance on imports is interesting given that this week Semen Padang, a subsidiary of Semen Indonesia, announced that it had started exporting cement to Australia.

Meanwhile, Boral Australia said that its cement revenue had fallen by 3% year-on-year to US$95.3m for its first half to 31 December 2016. However, cement sales volumes grew by 3% driven by higher direct sales. It also noted that competition and energy costs had increased in the period. HeidelbergCement, the other joint owner of Cement Australia, along with LafargeHolcim, said that its operations in Australia had delivered solid development due to strong residential construction demand and strong demand on the East Coast that compensated for a weaker mining sector. LafargeHolcim confirmed this in its half-year report adding that road infrastructure projects had also helped. It also noted that benefits to its adjusted operating earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) had been accrued through energy savings and lower clinker import costs.

LafargeHolcim's financial results for 2016 are due later this week on 2 March 2017. Potentially they have big implications for the Australian cement market given the rumours that were swirling around a year ago about a potential divestment. Although the signs so far suggest that its subsidiary Cement Australia did okay in 2016, pressure elsewhere in the group might prompt a sale of its share. We discussed this issue in December 2015 but since then Adelaide Brighton publicly said it was working on an acquisition plan, including strategy on how to cope with any potential competition issues. All eyes will be on LafargeHolcim later in the week.

China: Ron Wirahadiraksa and Hu Chao have resigned from Huaxin Cement. Wirahadiraksa has resigned as a director of the company citing other commitments. Chao has resigned as he has left the company. Both departures take immediate effect.

Wirahadiraksa, the current chief financial offer of LafargeHolcim, was proposed as a director of Huaxin Cement in September 2016. Huaxin Cement is an association company of LafargeHolcim. As of 31 December 2015, the group held 41.8 % of the voting rights in the associate company.