Displaying items by tag: Production

Forget the news stories about poor markets in Colombia and Brazil. Argentina is riding a construction boom right now. Local producer Loma Negra recently ran an initial public offering and it picked a good time to do it. It aimed to generate up to US$800m from the flotation and in the end it raised over US$1bn. Good news for its Brazilian owner InterCement no doubt, which was last reported as aiming to sell a 32% stake in the company in order to cover its debts. More cheer must have followed from Loma Negra’s third quarter results this week. Its cement sales volumes rose by 9% in the latest quarter to 1.72Mt due to expanding local construction activity.

Graph 1: Cement production and consumption in Argentina Q1 – 3, 2008 – 2017. Source: Asociación de Fabricantes de Cemento Portland (AFCP).

As Graph 1 shows its experience mirrors the wider industry. Cement production rose by almost the same rate for the industry as whole, by 10% year-on-year to 3.19Mt for the quarter, according to Asociación de Fabricantes de Cemento Portland (AFCP) data. For the nine months as a whole production has also risen by 9% to 8.7Mt. This figure is the third highest in the last decade since 2008. Production peaked in 2015 before dropping a major 10Mt following a subdued construction industry in the wake of devaluation of the Argentinean Peso in late 2015 and early 2016. At the time LafargeHolcim, the operator of Holcim Argentina, also blamed the negative influence of neighbouring Brazil’s own financial woes. The economy has bounced back giving the country’s its highest nine month cement consumption figure, 8.8Mt, in the last decade.

Earlier in the year LafargeHolcim said it was importing 0.25Mt of cement into Argentina between May 2017 and April 2018 because it couldn’t meet local demand from its own plants. Given the over-abundance of clinker in the world one might be forgiven for being sceptical about this claim. Bolivia’s Itacamba announced it was also exporting cement to Argentina this week. However, the other point to note from the graph is that consumption has been about 90,500t higher than production so far in 2017. This is an envious position for local producers to be in. One more striking feature that sticks out from the graph above is the undulating curve than both production and consumption has. The Argentinean economy has been through the ringer in recent years and this shows in the ups and downs of the figures.

From the perspective of the three major domestic producers, Loma Negra’s sales revenue rose by 53.9% year-on-year to US$620m in the first nine months of 2017. Its adjusted earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) rose by a whopping 73% to US$157m. Cementos Avellaneda, owned by Spain Cementos Mollins and Brazil’s Votorantim, reported similar good news with its overall results boosted by the Argentine market. Its sales revenue in the country rose by 28.3% to Euro130m and its EBITDA rose by 59.5% to Euro32.4m. Although Mollins did make the point that inflation had been particular problem in Argentina, although its impact had been ‘greatly’ outweighed by price rises. LafargeHolcim has had its problems globally so far in 2017 but Argentina hasn’t been one of them. Its operations in the country have been propping up the group’s Latin American results each quarter so far in 2017. Despite being one of its smaller regions by sales revenues, its sales and earnings delivered some of the group’s highest growth in the third quarter of 2017.

In this kind of environment new production capacity can’t be far away. Sure enough Cementos Avellaneda plans to increases the capacity of its San Luís cement grinding plant by 0.7Mt to 1Mt/yr by the second quarter of 2019. US$200m has been earmarked for the project.

So, great news for Argentina and proof that poor markets can turn around. The Brazilian cement association SNIC reckoned in October 2017 that the rate decline of cement sales was slowing, suggesting that the bottom of the downturn was in sight. On the evidence of the current situation in Argentina once the market does revive, South America will be the place to watch.

Arabian Cement Company had some choice words for a contractor this week when it blamed it in a bourse statement for a delay for a new mill at its Rabigh plant. The project has been pushed back to the third quarter of 2018 from the fourth quarter of 2017. The second phase of the plan, to build a new clinker production line, has also been placed under review.

The contractor may have given Arabian Cement an excuse to put a question mark over its new line, but the market reality has been stark. Also this week, Saudi Cement Company reported that its net profit had fallen by 51.5% year-on-year, to US$92.3m in the first nine months of 2017 compared to US$190.4m in the previous period. It blamed falling sales.

Graph 1: Cement sales (Mt) by quarter in Saudi Arabia, 2015 to September 2017. Source: Yamama Cement.

As Graph 1 shows, cement sales volumes in Saudi Arabia have been dropping since 2015. Sales fell by 5.3% year-on-year to 10.5Mt in the third quarter of 2017 from 10.9Mt in the same period in 2016. Year to date figures show a worse trend with a drop of 17.4% to 35.2Mt in the first nine months of 2017 compared to 42.7Mt in the same period in 2016. This decline has accelerated compared to a decrease of 5.4% from 45.1Mt in 2015 for the first three quarters.

Analyst Al Rajhi Capital provided some context to this situation in its September 2017 report on the August 2017 sales figures. It reported particularly steep declines in cement sales volumes of over 35% for Northern Cement, Najran cement and Hail Cement for the first eight months of the year. However, some producers - including City, Qassim, Yanbu and Al Safwa - did manage modest gains. Overall though the financial services company did not expect any pickup for the second half of 2017.

Last time this column covered the kingdom’s cement industry in early 2016 it asked when the government was going to relieve the export ban. Cement production was high, inventory was pilling up and infrastructure spending was falling. The ban was subsequently lifted but commentators worried that it would be too restrictive to have much effect due to tariffs and volume restrictions. A steady stream of cement producers has applied for export licences since then, but exports have not alleviated the situation. With inventory remaining high for the producers, current export policy failing to help and the local construction market subdued, it is unlikely that anything is going to change soon for the local cement industry. In fact it may even get worse if the government decides to revise its energy price policy later in 2017 or in early 2018, adding to the input cost burden of the producers.

Talk of market consolidation in this kind of market environment seems inevitable. This is exactly what happened earlier in the month when Jihad Al Rashid, the head of the Saudi National Committee for Cement Companies, said to local press that the local market only needed four large cement producers rather than the 17 companies it has at present. The question at this stage seems to be when, rather than if, will this process start.

It’s been a pessimistic month for the Indian cement industry with Ministry of Commerce & Industry data showing that cement production has fallen year-on-year every month since December 2016. This was followed by the Cement Manufacturers Association (CMA) saying that the industry was sitting on 100Mt/yr of excess production capacity. Now, the credit ratings agency ICRA has followed the data and downgraded its forecast for cement demand growth to not more than 4% for the 2017 - 2018 financial year.

Graph 1: Annual cement production in India. Source: Ministry of Commerce & Industry.

Graph 2: Monthly cement production growth rate year-on-year in India: Source: Ministry of Commerce & Industry.

Graph 1 shows a production peak in the 2015 - 2016 financial year before falling monthly production broke the trend in the 2016 - 2017 period. Graph 2 pinpoints the month it started to go wrong, November 2016, when the government introduced its demonetisation policy. Production growth went negative the following month in December 2017 and it hasn’t managed to right itself since then and grow. It’s convenient to blame the government for the slump in production but it troughed in February 2017 before taking a lower level of decline since then.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) annual report in August 2017 suggests that the policy failed in its principal purpose of reducing the kind of corruption that a cash heavy economy can hide such as tax avoidance. People reportedly managed to find ways to bypass the bank deposit limit and may have successfully laundered large amounts of cash without being caught. However, as commentators like the Financial Times have pointed out, the longer term implications of forcing the economy towards digital payments and increasing the tax base could yet be beneficial overall.

Graph 3: Cement production capacity utilisation rates in India. Source: UltraTech Cement.

Moving on, the CMA has blamed production overcapacity for the current mess and Graph 3 shows the problem starkly. If anything the CMA appears to have downplayed the over capacity crisis facing India, as UltraTech Cement’s figures (using data from the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) show an overcapacity of 155Mt in the 2016 – 2017 year and this will grow to a forecast 157Mt in the next financial year, even though the utilisation rate is expected to rise slightly. UltraTech Cement’s estimates don’t see the utilisation rate topping 70% until the 2020 – 2021 financial year. Analysts quoted in the Mint business newspaper concur, although they reckoned it would the rate would bounce sooner, in 2019 - 2020. Last month when the CMA moaned about the industry's excess capacity it pinned its hopes on infrastructure schemes like the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train. This prompted an official at JK Cements to say that he didn't think that one train line was going to make much of a difference.

This is one reason why ICRA’s and the other credit agencies’ growth rate forecasts for cement demand are important, because they indicate how fast India might be able to close the gap between production capcity and demand. Unfortunately demonetisation scuppered ICRA’s growth prediciton for 2016 – 2017. It forecast a rate of 6% but it actually fell by 1.2%! So downgrading its forecast for 2017 – 2018, with fears of weather and the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in the second half of the year, is ominious. Major cement producers such as Ultratech Cement and Ambuja Cement have based their road to recovery in their latest investor presentations on a 6% growth rate or higher. Pitch it lower and the gap doesn’t close. Here’s hoping for a brisk second half.

ARM Cement’s declining fortunes this week may signal the end of the current growth cycle in the Kenyan cement industry. The cement producer posted a 20% year-on-year drop in its sales revenue to US$52m for the first half of 2017. Its financial returns have been turbulent since 2015. However, inward investment from the UK’s CDC Group in 2016 had appeared to help the company enabling it to pay of debts and even consider an upgrade project to the grinding capacity at its Athi River plant.

Graph 1: Cement production in Kenya for first half of year, 2013 - 2017. Source: Kenya National Bureau of Statistics.

Graph 2: Cement consumption in Kenya for first five months of year, 2013 - 2017. Source: Kenya National Bureau of Statistics.

Unfortunately it now appears that the Kenyan cement market may have peaked in 2016. As can be seen from Kenya National Bureau of Statistics figures in Graph 1 and 2, production hit a high of 3.31Mt in the first half of 2016 and it has fallen to 3.18Mt for the same period in 2017. Consumption too has fallen, to 2.5Mt for the first five months of 2017. At the same time the value of building plans approved by the Nairobi City Council dropped by 12% to US$1.02bn for the first five months of 2017 with falls in both residential and non-residential applications although the decline in residential was more pronounced. One of the country’s larger infrastructure projects, the Standard Gauge Railway from Mombasa to Nairobi entered its final stage of construction towards the end of 2016 with the completion of track laying.

Bamburi Cement has also reported falling revenue and profit so far in 2017. Its turnover fell by 8% to US$170 and its profit decreased by 36% to US$18m for the half year. Bamburi blamed it on a contracting market, low private sector investment leading to residential sector issues, delays in some infrastructure projects and droughts. The drought also hit the company’s operating profit via higher energy costs. On the plus side though Bamburi’s subsidiary in neighbouring Uganda did record a good performance.

It’s likely that the general election in Kenya in early August 2017 has slowed down the construction industry through uncertainty about infrastructure investment and general fears about political unrest. Thankfully these latter concerns have appeared unfounded so far but the memory of the disorder following the poll in 2007, where over 1000 people died, remains acute. And of course the 2017 election is not over yet following the intervention of the Supreme Court to nullify the result of the first ballot and call for a second. A longer election period with the impending rerun will further add to the pressure on the construction and cement industries.

An industry report on East Africa in February 2017 by the Dyer & Blair Investment Bank fleshes out much of the situation in the region. One particular point it makes though is that, as it stands at present, building materials may be too expensive to grow the market fully. Dyer & Blair suggest that lower construction costs and more affordable home ownership methods might be the key to driving low end housing demands and in turn this might grow cement consumption.

With lots of new production capacity coming online both locally and in neighbouring countries such as Uganda and Ethiopia, the Kenyan cement market faces the dilemma of trying to balance the medium to long-term demographics with the picture on the ground. Low per capita cement consumption suggests growing markets but if the demand isn’t present in the short term then the impetus for cement producers to expand shrivels especially with aggressive imports, rising energy costs and growing local competition. Once the election period finishes the picture will be clearer but the boom times may have abated for now.

The All Pakistan Cement Manufacturers Association (APCMA) struck a triumphant note this week as it announced that its industry has over 26Mt/yr of capacity upgrades in the pipeline. Its chairman Sayeed Saigol concluded in a press release that the country’s growth trend required ‘massive’ investment and that its producers were working on it.

Graph 1 – Local and export cement despatches in Pakistan, 2008 – 2016. Data source: APCMA.

Graph 1 shows how the local industry has changed since 2009. At this time exports hit a high of over 11Mt, constituting 34% of all cement despatches at the time. Since then though exports have fallen to below 6Mt or 14% of despatches, as local despatches have started to increase. Although local despatches have risen each year, the growth rate was below 1% in 2011. In 2016 it was over 14%.

Much has changed since 2010. At this time production capacity hit a high of 45Mt/yr in the 2009 – 2010 Pakistan financial year, according to APCMA data, but then utilisation sunk to below 73%, its lowest rate in over a decade. Pakistan’s cement producers sought a way out by exporting their cement. Export volumes subsequently exploded to a high of nearly 11Mt in 2008 – 2009 from next to nothing at the turn of the millennium.

The effects of this had particular repercussions in eastern and southern Africa as local producers suffered against seaborne imports. In 2012 the outgoing chief of South Africa’s PPC summarised the problem by saying that imports were not a threat to African expansion, provided that a cement plant was not built within 200km of a port. Rightly or wrongly cement from Pakistan was vilified by the African press and then legislated against. South Africa even implementing anti-dumping duties to howls of derision from Pakistan.

Funnily enough though the APCMA has recommended that Pakistan’s government do exactly the same thing against imports of cement from Iran. Industry scare stories about Iranian cement being sold illegally in Pakistan have circulated since at least 2012. Iran’s nuclear deal in 2015 must have worried the local industry, as the prize for Iran was the lifting of international sanctions making it easier for one of the world’s largest cement producers to start exporting its product. However, president-elect Trump’s disdain for the Iran deal may put those worries to rest if the deal is ‘cancelled’.

Back to the present, the Pakistan cement industry appears to be booming. One motor is the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor, a collection of infrastructure projects worth US$54bn. There is some disagreement at this point about how the usage levels of cement breakdown, with the chief executive of Thatta Cement placing it at 60% for infrastructure and 40% for housing but with other commentators placing it at 70% for housing and 30% for infrastructure. If the latter is true then Pakistan’s cement producers may receive an even bigger payday. The emphasis on housing shouldn’t be underestimated though as the country’s production capacity per capita, below 200kg/capita, is low by international standards. Either way, things are looking good for the local producers.

Two of Japan's largest cement producers have reported reduced domestic cement sales in the country this week. First, Taiheiyo Cement revised its forecast for its 2017 financial year, ending on 31 March 2017, bringing its estimated net sales down by 2.3%. Then, Ube Group reported that its cement sales had fallen by 7.2% year-on-year to US$1.05bn in the first half of its financial year. Both producers blamed poor weak demand locally, but Ube also cited a poor export market.

Graph 1: Domestic and export cement sales in Japan, 2006 - 2015. Source: Japanese Cement Association.

This last point is interesting because it differs from the latest data released by the Japanese Cement Association (JCA). As can be seen in Graph 1 JCA figures show that exports of cement have been rising since 2013. So far this trend looks likely to continue in 2016. Ube's different experience may arise from its market mix and its distribution of cement plants and transport infrastructure. Both of its cement plants are based in the south of the country. Commentators have attributed the boost in exports to the devaluation of the Yen in 2015 as well as strong brand perception overseas. Unfortunately, this overall rise in exports has been matched by a fall in domestic sales at the same time and this is causing a headache for the major producers. Production too has started to drop since 2014 (Graph 2).

Graph 2: Cement production in Japan, 2006 - 2015. Source: Japanese Cement Association.

Japan's cement market is dominated by four producers - Taiheiyo Group, Mitsubishi Materials, Ube Industries and Sumitomo Osaka Cement - which hold nearly three quarters of the nation's production capacity between them. According to Global Cement Directory 2016 data, Taiheiyo Cement and its subsidiaries is the market leader with over 30% market share with the other three holding 10 - 20% each.

Graph 3: Cement production capacity share in Japan (Mt). Source: Global Cement Directory 2016.

Taiheiyo's downgraded forecast follows poor first quarter results, in which its net sales for its cement business fell by 16% to US$1.19bn. This follows a slight rise in net sales for its cement business in its 2016 financial year due to a boost in sales from its overseas subsidiaries, particularly in the US, that surpass a fall in domestic sales. Sales volumes were 14.7Mt domestically and 4Mt in exports in 2016. Mitsubishi Materials has posted a similar picture with cement sales and profits rising in 2016 before suffering in the first quarter of 2017. Mitsubishi Materials blamed the poor market on a delay in construction work mainly due to labour shortages and sluggish growth in demand from the public sector. Ditto Sumitomo Osaka Cement.

As highlighted by such decision as Tokyo Cement's move to resume exporting clinker to Sri Lanka in early 2015, Japan's cement industry is working hard to compensate for falling demand at home. Increasing exports in Asia Pacific among other massive exporters such as China, Vietnam and South Korea is impressive, although the prominent foothold by Japanese companies in the recovering US market may offer some advantage here. On-going weak demand in China though cuts out one major market for Chinese exporters. However, being a major exporter in a region of major cement producers must be a concern. Although commentators such as Ad Ligthart dismiss the chances of China flooding the world with cheap cement, if they are wrong and Japan continues its reliance on exports it may find itself in deep water. The other risk is if the US authorities decide to get tougher on foreign exports it may knock out one more market for Japanese exports. Too much reliance on exports is always dangerous. In this context, it’s no surprise that Japanese cement producers are blaming the government for insufficient infrastructure spending.

Even the Chinese premier doesn't trust his country's GDP figures. Li Keqiang reportedly told a US ambassador this in 2007. He described Chinese GDP figures as 'man-made' and unreliable. Wikileaks then made the diplomatic report public a few years later. This anecdote has been much reported this week due to the latest gloomy economic figures from China. Its economy officially grew by 6.9% in 2015, its slowest rate in 25 years.

So what can a jittery world trust? Keqiang was reported to focus on three data samples to compensate for an unreliable GDP: electricity consumption, rail cargo volume and bank lending. Global Cement Magazine suggests that he should have followed one more: cement. What can cement tell us about the Chinese economy in recent years?

Chinese cement production fell by 4.9% to 2.35Bt/yr in 2015 according to newly published figures by the National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBSC). This is significant. Firstly, whether it is a true reflection of actual production or not, it is an admission by a Chinese state body that cement production is declining. Secondly, it signals the end of the rapid growth of the country's heavy industries through the 1990s and 2000s.

Figure 1 – Chinese cement production by quarter, 2014 – 2015

Figure 1 shows Chinese cement production by quarter in 2014 and 2015 using NBSC data. Two years are insufficient to pick out any major trends other than seasonal trends throughout each year. However, remove the slow winter months in the first quarter of each year and a steady decrease in production throughout 2014 and 2015 is apparent.

Figure 2 – Chinese cement production by year, 2005 – 2015

Figure 2 offers the context that Figure 1 lacked by comparing cement production from 2005 to 2015. Notable trends to point out are a slow down in growth in 2008, around the time of the global financial crash. Then production peaked in 2014 before falling in 2015. This data comes from the United States Geological Survey and then latterly the NBSC.

Figure 3 – Chinese cement production by year and GDP/capita, 2005 – 2015

Figure 3 shows annual growth in cement production against growth in GDP. The similarity of each line here, or the rate of growth, and where they diverge is what is interesting here. Up until the late 2000s the trend is similar until GDP/capita starts to grow faster than cement production. At this point either the Chinese economy has started to acknowledge that it can build all the infrastructure and housing it needs or perhaps the slowing growth in cement production has started to point to slowing GDP/capita growth.

2015 could be a blip if growth resumes in 2016. Yet the other heavy industry metrics suggest otherwise. Electric power and steel production also fell for the first time in 2015. Coal production dropped for the second year in a row. The Chinese housing market started to slow noticeably in 2014, cement production followed by slowing down and now the country's GDP growth has also slowed. Alongside this the industry's capacity reduction programme officially started in late 2013. Cement consumption per capita for China has long suggested that Chinese growth was due to slow. It is reassuring to finally see the official production figures reflect this. The real question though is what happens next.

There were two telling stories from Vietnam this week that show the level to which demand has been overestimated in the centrally-planned cement sector. Firstly, the country reported that exports in the period between January and July 2014 increased by nearly a quarter year-on-year to 13.1Mt. Secondly, the Prime Minister announced that another five cement plant projects were to be axed, following nine others that bit the dust in 2013.

All this is against a backdrop of chronic lower-than-expected domestic cement demand. When we look at the figures, it’s not hard to see that domestic consumers have had trouble consuming all the cement produced in Vietnam. The government forecast for cement production in 2015 is in the region of 75 - 76Mt. If this was spread evenly between Vietnam’s 88.8m people, each person would have to consume ~850kg of cement. That’s possible but it is quite a lot for a lower middle income economy. However, separate reports state that a 10% rise in domestic sales on 2013 levels would lead to just 60Mt of domestic cement sales in 2015. This equates to a more realistic 675kg/capita.

These figures leave a massive and increasing amount of cement for export. Read again that figure from the first seven months of 2014 – 13.1Mt – Roughly the capacity of South Africa (~12.5Mt/yr), Tunisia (12.9Mt/yr) of Colombia (12.9Mt/yr)! Also, while cement exports volumes were up by nearly a quarter, the value of those same exports rose by only 20%. This indicates a drop in export prices and represents additional pressure to halt capacity expansion.

Against a backdrop of 90Mt/yr expected capacity in 2015 and falling export prices, the latest cement project cull certainly makes sense but even in a best-case scenario the country is looking at a capacity utilisation rate of just 66 - 67%. Some cement plant project owners have even found themselves trapped by the situation. Having indebted themselves on the promise of ever-increasing cement demand, they now face the prospect of throwing good money after bad, continuing to build and operate just to service debts. This is a very unenviable position indeed. The lifting of trade restrictions within the ASEAN Community on 1 January 2015 might help export volumes, but might also also drive prices down further.

Culling new cement plant projects is one thing, but could the next step be more drastic? North of the border, China is gradually reducing its overcapacity by removing older and less efficient capacity. Perhaps Vietnam would do well to follow suit.