Displaying items by tag: Results

US: HeidelbergCement expects its profit to be negatively effected in 2017 following reforms to the US tax system. Following a change in the rules from 22 December 2017 the federal corporate tax rate has been reduced from 35% to 21% from the start of 2018. In addition, the regulations regarding the utilization of loss carryforwards were changed. This has affected deferred tax assets on losses and interest carried-forwards that are expected to reduce the group’s balance sheet by Euro200m in its annual report.

However, the company still expects a ‘significant’ increase of 2017 group share of profit before one-time effects. In addition in 2019 the major reduction of the effective tax rate in the US is anticipated to have a positive effect on group net profit and cashflow.

The third quarter financial results for HeidelbergCement are out today. They aren’t perfect but the company is hanging in there following its acquisition of Italcementi in late 2016. As one would expect both cement sales volumes and sales revenue are up on a double-digit basis. After all, HeidelbergCement has absorbed a major competitor, including assets, staff, cement plants and all. Its volumes and revenue have improved, more importantly though, on a like-for-like basis, even if it is modest. With the US and Europe driving sales the cement producer has time to make its promised synergies following the Italian acquisition and hopefully wait out recovery in places like Indonesia and Egypt.

Graph 1: Cement sales volumes for selected multinational cement producers during the first nine months of 2017. Source: Company financial reports.

That growth on a like-for-like basis is crucial compared to HeidelbergCement’s big rival, the world’s biggest cement producer, LafargeHolcim. As Graph 1 shows sales volumes data for the major multinational cement producers shows quite a varied picture. LafargeHolcim’s sales volumes have fallen by 12% year-on-year to 156Mt but the company has also been reducing its production capacity. Despite this, a rough calculation of its production utilisation rate suggests that it is selling less cement proportionally, although the company’s like-for-like figures disagree, positing a rise of 1.8%. Cemex’s sales volumes declined slightly to 51.3Mt. The larger regional companies show interesting trends. UltraTech Cement has managed to increase its sales volumes by 5% to 40.4Mt overcoming a poor third quarter in 2016. What to watch here will be whether this will be enough to overcome the effects of demonetisation that rocked India’s economy in late 2016.

Graph 2: Sales revenue for selected multinational cement producers during the first nine months of 2017. Source: Company financial reports.

The stronger regional positions of those last two companies really hits home when sales revenue is examined. As can be seen in Graph 2 both UltraTech Cement and Dangote Cement are growing their sales revenue, the latter despite dropping sales volumes. UltraTech Cement is suffering from falling profits due to rising fuel costs and it may yet suffer from ‘corporate indigestion’ as it digests its acquisition of 21.2Mt/yr cement production capacity from Jaiprakash Associates that took place in June 2017. Dangote Cement seems to have increased its earnings and profits despite problems at home in Nigeria by improving its fuel mix. Yet, flirtations with South Africa’s PPC aside, its expansion plans remain in a holding position. Dangote Cement presents another fascinating situation. Its overall sales volumes have fallen but this reflects a failing market at home in Nigeria and doesn’t show the company’s booming sales in the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Results from CRH and the Brazilian companies Votorantim and InterCement will further flesh out the situation when they are released. Yet, the difference between worldwide producers and regional producers seems to be clear. The likes of LafargeHolcim and Cemex with a global presence are generally battling stagnation in the cement markets overall with a couple of key markets holding them back. Meanwhile, larger regional producers in the right locations are growing. However, the absence of the Brazilian producers is critical here as their experience of the floundering market in Brazil is very different to that of, say, UltraTech Cement’s in India. Looking ahead, the next quarter will be particularly interesting to see how demonetisation skewed UltraTech Cement’s performance, to start to see the first results from HeidelbergCement a year after its purchase of Italcementi and how well LafargeHolcim’s new chief is doing.

Lots to mull over in LafargeHolcim’s third quarter results this week. Not least that the new guy is now in charge. Former Sika boss Jan Jenisch took over officially in September 2017. In his first financial statement, he said that the results did not represent the company’s ‘full potential.’ He then said that he had hit the reboot button to reset the group’s expectations to reflect the current market.

The group’s forecast for cement demand globally remains at an increase by 1 – 3% on average for 2017. This is no change from LafargeHolcim’s forecast in mid-2017. What has changed though is the anticipated growth in operating earnings in 2017 revised down to 5 – 7% year-on-year from 10% or higher. Expected measures of earnings per share and leverage have also been reduced. Underpinning this is a change to some of the volume and pricing assumptions for 2018. The group also said it was conducting a business review, including country strategies and a focus on simplification, cost discipline and performance management.

As any IT manager will tell you, when you have a problem with a computer you reboot the machine in the first instance as an easy fix. Jenisch’s version of this strategy will hopefully buy him some time to try and take charge of the company.

Previous chief executive officer (CEO) Eric Olsen was doing similar things since the formation of LafargeHolcim in 2015 to downsize the company into profitability whilst coping with too much cement production capacity worldwide. However, the on going Syria legal investigation forced the company to publicly accept some level of wrongdoing and it cost Olsen his job despite him having zero involvement or even knowledge of the affair. Meanwhile, rumours of continued boardroom clashes between major shareholders that have existed since even before the formation of the company resurfaced with the announcement in mid-October 2017 that chief financial officer (CFO) Ron Wirahadiraksa was leaving after less than two years in the role. As this column noted in May 2017 Jenisch might be exactly the right man for this particular job given his battles at Sika with that company’s controlling family’s wish to sell its stake and majority voting rights to Saint-Gobain.

Moving on, the group’s cement market outlook makes for sobering reading with growth above 2% only expected for Latin America and Asia Pacific regions in 2017. Even North America, the great white hope of cement industry growth in recent years, only has a forecast of 0 - 2%. Actual cement sales volumes in this region fell by 1.6% to 5.9Mt on a like-for-like basis so far in 2017 due to hurricanes and other bad weather events, with ‘cautious’ private and public investment giving an effect too. Incidentally, the Portland Cement Association (PCA) downgraded its assessment of US growth this week too in its latest forecast. Worse still the Middle East Africa region is expected to drop by 2 – 4% due to poor economies in various local markets, notably in Algeria and Egypt. All of this pretty much fits the like-for-like growth of cement sales of 1.8% to 156Mt in the first nine months of 2017 that LafargeHolcim has reported. The surprise though is that Latin America is growing despite on-going problems in Brazil.

This then leaves the surprise message on the same day as the third quarter results release that LafargeHolcim is in talks with the board of South Africa’s PPC. Buying a major African cement producer like PPC doesn’t quite sit with the image of a company whittling itself down into profitability. Instead, it gives the impression that LafargeHolcim wants to dominate the African market ahead of the anticipated demographic cement consumption wave. PPC for its part, after flirtations with other bidders such as Dangote Cement, may simply be trying to raise its price in a bidding war.

Boardroom battles, sluggish global cement consumption, the Syrian legal probe, potential expansion plans in Sub-Saharan Africa and efficiency drives. And these are just the issues we know about! Jan Jenisch has a lot on his plate whatever happens next. Let’s just hope that when the reboot process finishes he doesn’t find himself looking at the construction company version of the ‘blue screen of death.’

There is plenty to mull over on the Chinese cement market at the moment as the half-year reports for the major cement producers are being published. Anhui Conch revealed this week a glowing balance sheet with a 33% jump in its sales revenue to US$4.79bn. It attributed the boost to a ‘significant’ increase in prices and continued discipline with production and operation costs. Although CNBM is scheduled to release its results at the end of August 2017, Anhui Conch appear to be well ahead of its next largest rivals locally as can be seen in Graph 1.

Graph 1: Sales revenue of major selected Chinese cement producers. Sources: Company financial results.

Beyond the headline figures it is interesting to pinpoint the areas in China where Anhui Conch says it isn’t doing as well. Its South China region, comprising Guangdong and Guangxi provinces, suffered from competition in the form of new production capacity, which also in turn dented prices. Despite this ‘black spot’ in the company’s regional revenue still grew its sales in double-digits by 14%.

The other point to note is the growing number of overseas projects with the completion of a cement grinding plant in Indonesia, new plants being built in Indonesia, Cambodia and Laos, and projects being actively planned in Russia, Laos and Myanmar. The cement producer also opened seven grinding plants at home in China during the reporting period. It’s not there yet but it will mark a serious tipping point when the company starts to open more plants outside of China than within it. With the government still pushing for production capacity reduction it can only be a matter of time. On that last point China Resources Cement (CRC) reckoned in its half-year results that only four new clinker production lines, with a production capacity of 5.1Mt/yr, were opened in China in the first half of 2017.

After a testing year in 2016 CRC’s turnover has picked up so far in the first-half of 2017 as its sales revenue for the period rose by 17% to US$1.67bn. Despite its cement sales volumes falling by 9% to 33.6Mt, its price increased. Given that over two thirds of its cement sales arose from Guangdong and Guangxi it seems likely that CRC suffered from the same competition issues that Anhui Conch complained about.

Graph 2: Chinese cement production by half year, 2014 – 2017. Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China.

Graph 2 adds to the picture of a resurgent local cement industry suggesting that the Chinese government’s response to the overcapacity crisis may be starting to deliver growth again. After cement production hit a high in 2014 in fell in 2015 and started to revive in 2016. So far 2017 seems to be following this trend.

Returning to the foreign ambitions of China’s cement producers brings up another story from this week with news about the Nepalese government’s decision to delay signed an investment agreement with a Chinese joint venture that is currently building a cement plant in the country. With the prime minister visiting India the local press is painting it as a face-saving move by the Nepalese to avoid antagonising either of the country’s main infrastructure partners. This is relevant because the cement industries of both China and India are starting look abroad as they consolidate and rationalise. Once China’s cement producer start building more capacity overseas than at home, conflicts with Indian producers are likely to grow and present more awkward situations for states caught in the middle.

Cement sales volumes are down at the larger multinational cement producers so far in 2017. As the first half-year results emerge, a picture seems to be appearing of sluggish growth at best for the major internationals. Reduced working days and poor weather have been blamed for the underwhelming performance.

Graph 1: Cement sales volumes for selected multinational cement producers during the first half of 2017. Source: Company financial reports.

True, LafargeHolcim’s sales rose by 0.4% year-on-year on a like-for-like basis, probably due to the assets the group has been sloughing off since the merger, but this is hardly the dynamic growth shareholders may have hoped for. Meanwhile, HeidelbergCement, following its acquisition of Italcementi in late 2016, has only been able to increase its cement and clinker sales by 1% for the first half of 2017 once consolidation effects were excluded. Here the problem appears to be reduced sales in both the US and Indonesia at the same time. This then leaves Cemex with a 2% drop in sales volumes to 33.9Mt with a big drop in the US despite a promising construction market otherwise. It blamed the decline on a high comparison base in 2016 and the weather.

The larger regional players examined here appear to have fared better. Both UltraTech Cement in India and Dangote in sub-Saharan Africa reported flat or falling sales volumes. However, delve a little deeper and there’s more going on. UltraTech didn’t offer any reason for the decline although it was likely focused on its acquisition of assets from Jaiprakash Associates and the knock-on from the demonetisation process last year. That purchase increased its cement production capacity by nearly 40% to 91.4Mt/yr from 66.3Mt/yr and it seems keen, to investors at least, that it will be able to rocket up the capacity utilisation rate at the new plants.

Dangote meanwhile has taken a blow from the poor economic situation in Nigeria, where it still produces most of its cement. Here, sales fell by 21.8% to 6.86Mt from 8.77Mt, causing its overall sales to fall by 11.3% to 11.5Mt. Almost incredibly though, as Graph 2 shows, Dangote upped its sales revenue by a whopping 41.2% to US$1.13bn off the back of improved efficiencies and a much better fuel mix in Nigeria. The turnaround is impressive considering the pressure the company faced in 2016. Today’s news that the firm has sold a 2.3% stake to foreign investors adds to the impression of a company on the move.

Graph 2: Sales revenue for selected multinational cement producers during the first half of 2017. Source: Company financial reports.

Looking at overall sales revenue shows a happier picture for most of the producers detailed here, with the exception of HeidelbergCement. Although Graph 2 shows declines for LafargeHolcim and Cemex on a like-for-like basis, at least growth is occurring. HeidelbergCement though has reported static revenue on an adjusted basis for the period. This suggests that the producer has hit problems just as it is starting to integrate the Italcementi assets into its portfolio. In theory the geographic spread of its new production units should shield it from lowered growth elsewhere but if this doesn’t happen it may be in for a rougher ride than LafargeHolcim following its merger.

In summary, being a large-scale multinational cement producer doesn’t quite seem to be offering the balanced growth one might expect so far in 2017. Cement sales volumes are slipping and revenue is also down on a direct comparison basis. It’s barely a case for comparison but smaller regionally based producers like UltraTech Cement and Dangote, in the right locations, seem to be capitalising on their positions. We’ll see how the big Brazilian producers Votorantim and InterCement, Buzzi Unicem and CRH fit this trend when they release their financial results over the next few weeks.

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.

Lots of fascinating information has been emerging in recent weeks about changes in the Chinese cement industry as the larger producers have published their annual financial results. One example is the focus on using alternative fuels to fire up kilns. As explained below, the spotlight on co-processing is state-mandated and this is why the producers are now keen to promote their adherence. Even so, as ever with China, the scale of the change is staggering.

For example, Anhui Conch reported that it had completed 15 waste treatment projects and one sludge treatment project in 2016. In addition it had three projects still undergoing construction at the year-end. The group said that it co-processed 600,000t of domestic waste in its cement kilns in 2016. All of this was achieved by a company that says it only started co-processing municipal waste from its first project in 2010. China Resources Cement’s (CRC) progress was slower but it managed to start a co-processing project at its plant in Binyang County, Guangxi in December 2015 and a sludge project in Nanning City, Guangxi in July 2016. New projects at Tianyang County, Guangxi and Midu County, Yunnan are being built at present, with completion expected by the end of 2017.

Long held rumours about production overcapacity in China came to head in 2015 with the National Bureau of Statistics in China (NBSC) reporting that sales dropped in 2015 following a decade of steady growth. Then the results of most of major producers followed this by falling in 2015. CRC presented a good history of what happened next in the Chinese cement industry in its results report [LINK]. In brief, in 2016 the Chinese government implemented supply-side structural reforms focusing on production efficiency, reiterating attempts to stop new production capacity being built and pushing environmental reforms. Throughout the year various government offices released guidelines to encourage market consolidation, cut obsolete production capacity, increase co-processing rates and decrease the energy needed to produce each tonne of clinker.

Graph 1: Cement sales in China, 2012 – 2016. Source: National Bureau of Statistics in China.

Whether or not any of this has helped the Chinese cement industry to overcome the problems it faced in 2015 is unclear. As Graph 1 shows, Chinese cement sales started to rise again slightly to 2.35Bnt in 2016 from 2.31Bnt in 2015. Sales revenue from some of the major cement producers presents a more varied picture as can be seen in Graph 2. Anhui Conch’s revenue rose by 9.7% year-on-year to US$8.12bn in 2016, China National Building Material Company’s (CNBM) revenue rose by 1% to US$14.8bn and CRC’s revenue fell by 4.2% to US$3.3bn. CRC may have suffered here from its relative business concentration in southeast China. Both Anhui Conch’s and CNBM’s results seemed to look patchy in mid-2016 when they released their half-year reports, but both sales and profits seemed to pick up sharply in the second half of the year.

Graph 2: Sales revenue from selected major Chinese cement producers. Source: Company annual reports.

As the current set of structural reforms kick in within the Chinese cement industry it will be interesting to see what happens next. From plans to cut 10% of local clinker production capacity by 2020 to ambitious environmental aims the sector barely has time to catch its breath. The question is whether the major producers balance sheets are being helped more by a recovering local market or by the reforms. Either way the uptake of alternative fuels is encouraging.

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.

LafargeHolcim was the last major European cement producer to release its second quarter financial results last week. The collective picture is confused. Cement sales volumes have risen but sales revenue have fallen.

Most of the producers have blamed negative currency effects for their falls in revenue during the first half of 2016. Holding a mixed geographical portfolio of building materials production assets has kept these companies afloat over the last decade but this has come with a price. The recent appreciation of the Euro versus currencies in various key markets, such as in Egypt, has hit balance sheets, since the majority of these firms are based in Europe and mostly use the Euro for their accounting. Meanwhile, sales volumes of cement have mostly risen for the companies we have examined making currency effects a major contributor.

Graph 1 - Changes in cement sales volumes for major non-Chinese cement producers in the first half of 2016 compared to the first half of 2015 (%). Data labels are the volumes reported in 2016. Source: Company reports.

As can be seen in Graph 1, sales volumes have risen for most of the producers, with the exception of LafargeHolcim. Despite blaming shortages of gas in Nigeria for hitting its operating income, LafargeHolcim actually saw its biggest drop in sales volumes in Latin America by 13.2% year-on-year to 11.8Mt. The other surprise here was that its North American region reported a 2.7% fall to 8.8Mt with Canada the likely cause. Vicat deserves mention here for its giant boost in sales volumes due to recovery in France and good performance in Egypt and the US, amongst other territories.

Graph 2 - Changes in sales revenue for major non-Chinese cement producers in the first half of 2016 compared to the first half of 2015 (%). Data labels are the sales reported in 2016. Source: Company reports.

Overall sales revenue for these companies presents a gloomier scenario with the majority of them losing revenue in the first half of the year, with most of them blaming negative currency effects for this. Titan is included in this graph to show that it’s not all bad news. Its growth in revenue was supported by good performance in the US and Egypt. Likewise, good performance in Eastern Europe and the US helped Buzzi Unicem turn in a positive increase in its sales revenue. They remain, however, the exception.

Looking at sales revenue generated from cement offers one way to disentangle currency effects from performance. Unfortunately, only about half of the companies looked at here actually published this for the reporting period. Of these, LafargeHolcim reported a massive rise that was probably due to the accounting coping with the merger process that finalised in 2015. Of the rest - HeidelbergCement, Italcementi and Vicat – the sales revenue from each company’s cement businesses fell at a faster rate than overall sales. Like-for-like figures here would help clarify this situation.

Meanwhile, a mixed global patchwork of cement demand is focusing multinational attention on key countries with growing economies like Egypt and Nigeria. Both of these countries have undergone currency devaluation versus the Euro and are facing energy shortages for various reasons. The exposure of the multinational cement producers to such places may become clearer in the second half of the year.

LafargeHolcim was the last of the major non-Chinese cement producers to report its annual financial results when it did so on 17 March 2016. With the full set in, as it were, Global Cement will compare the progress of the world’s largest multinational cement companies in 2015.

The first thing to note is that whilst cement production growth rates have hardly been inspiring in 2015, growth or holding the status quo is occurring. The emerging markets have faced challenges in 2015 following the prolonged depression in the construction sector in Europe since 2008. As Wolfgang Reitzle and Eric Olsen put it in the forward of the 2015 LafargeHolcim annual report, “…our share price has been significantly affected, mainly by the volatility associated with emerging markets.”

Figure 1: Cement & clinker sales volumes from five major cement producers, 2011 – 2015. Source: Annual reports. Note: Sales volumes are calculated for LafargeHolcim for 2011 – 2013.

Figure 1 shows cement and clinker sales volumes for the major cement producers from 2011 to 2015. This graph isn’t quite as depressing as it looks because it shows a drop in cement production for the major producers and it has started to show remedial action being taken. Where growth isn’t happening in a market, pressure builds to find it through mergers and acquisitions.

So, Lafarge and Holcim merged and the decision may be now starting to show promise with its sales volumes remaining static year-on-year in 2015 rather than falling. It should be noted here that the drop from 2013 to 2014 is due to the divestments Lafarge and Holcim both made before the merger to satisfy competition bodies and because the sales volumes were calculated here from the separate Lafarge and Holcim annual reports.

Even more so, HeidelbergCement’s plan to buy Italcementi may be a good idea here. Already it has been growing its cement production each year since 2013. The acquisition could potentially speed up the growth considerably. Elsewhere, both Cemex and Buzzi Unicem are showing signs of picking up cement production since 2013.

Figure 2: Earnings before interest and taxation (EBIT) for five major cement producers, 2011 – 2015. Source: Annual reports. Note: Cemex and LafargeHolcim figures have been converted from US Dollars and Swiss Francs respectively at current exchange rates.

Figure 2 shows one indicator of profitability for the major cement producers by comparing their earnings before interest and taxation (EBIT). This is less useful than cement sales volumes because it covers the producers’ entire businesses including aggregate and concrete sectors. However, it does show the problems Italcementi has faced and it offers one reason why the company might have allowed itself to be taken over. Note also how Cemex has continued to increase its EBIT despite its high levels of debts.

Returning to the LafargeHolcim comments about volatile emerging markets, most of the producers reported tough trading in their Asian territories in 2015. The exceptions were Cemex with its reliance on the Philippines booming market and Buzzi with its limited assets in the region. However, Cemex suffered in its own major emerging market in South and Central America. Despite these setbacks though all of the producers featured here benefitted from growing sales volumes in North America, particularly in the US.

Both LafargeHolcim and Cemex announced divestments promptly following their results announcements suggesting that they feel they need to do more to regain the profitability they once had. LafargeHolcim plans to sell assets in South Korea and Saudi Arabia. Cemex has agreed to sell cement plants in Bangladesh and Thailand and a minority stake in its business in the Philippines. This last decision may suggest how serious Cemex is about tackling its debts considering the strong market in that country at present. HeidelbergCement is due to complete its acquisition of Italcementi in the second half of 2016.

Finally, the major changes to the multinational cement producers will continue in 2016 as CRH asserts itself following its major acquisitions from Lafarge and Holcim in 2015. Already its Europe Heavyside Divison reported sales revenue of Euro3.61bn in 2015 surpassing that of Buzzi Unicem. Other international producers such as Eurocement, InterCement and Votorantim were also poised for continuing growing but poor domestic markets (Russia and Brazil) may cripple their ambitions in the short term.