Displaying items by tag: UltraTech Cement

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.

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.

Boy, is the UltraTech Cement and Jaiprakash Associates deal dragging on. The agreement by UltraTech to buy cement plants from Jaiprakash Associates reached its latest revision this week when UltraTech upped its offer to US$2.40bn from the US$2.36bn offered at the end of March 2016. The deal also includes an additional US$70m for a cement grinding plant under construction in Uttar Pradesh.

This time round the haggling took place to the background music of Jaiprakash Associates’ mounting debts. It owes US$4.45bn to a group of lenders led by ICICI Bank. A repayment window was due to close on 30 June 2016. Defaulting this deadline could have switched the account to non-performing asset status. So, according to reports in the Indian media, the lenders forced a strategic debt restructuring scheme on Jaiprakash Associates. Or in other words they took control of the company. Alongside all of this UltraTech was allegedly trying to renegotiate the terms of the deal agreed in March 2016 following amendments to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) Amendment Act, 2015.

How paying more for the same assets benefits UltraTech remains to be seen. In addition US$1.78bn worth of Jaiprakash Associates’ debts will be transferred to UltraTech, according to Rahul Kumar, Director & CFO of Jaiprakash Associates. At US$118/t for new-ish production capacity it still seems like a good deal. Doubtless the devil lies in the (unseen) detail. Reports in the Indian media speculate that the lenders may have threatened UltraTech with rival bids.

To add to the confusion, the deal covers cement plants with a production capacity of 21.2Mt/yr but this total includes both integrated cement plants (clinker producing) and standalone cement grinding plants. Given the difference in cost to build a clinker production line compared to a grinding mill this makes assessing the value of the deal difficult.

UltraTech have described the purchase as a ‘geographic market expansion,’ which will allow its entry into markets of India including the Satna cluster in
Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and coastal Andhra Pradesh. It has also stated that its cement production capacity (clinker and grinding) will rise to 91.1Mt/yr following the deal. As ever, the latest revised agreement is dependent on shareholder, creditor, high court and regulatory approval. UltraTech plan to complete the transaction by July 2017. What can possibly go wrong!?

India: Dilip Gaur has replaced K K Maheshwari as the managing director of Grasim Industries, with effect from 1 April 2016. Maheshwari will remain on the board as a non-executive director.

Gaur was previously the deputy-managing director of Ultratech Cement. Before that he worked for Birla Copper, Alexandria Carbon Black and Pan Century Edible Oils. He also worked for over 20 years with Hindustan Unilever. Gaur holds a bachelor of engineering degree in chemicals and took the Advanced Management Program at Harvard, US.

Small print can cause large consequences. Billion US Dollar consequences. Take the 2015 amendment to India’s Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) Act from 1957. Ambiguous wording in the legislation may have held up two prominent cement industry acquisitions in 2015. It also hangs over the recently announced purchase by UltraTech Cement of Jaiprakash Associates’ cement plants.

The MMDR was amended in January 2015. As the Times of India explained in mid-2015, a clause in the amendment said, “The transfer of mineral concessions shall be allowed only for concessions which are granted through auction.” However, it was unclear whether this meant historically allocated mines given via nominations or only newly allocated ones. Given the reliance of clinker plants on reliable mineral reserves this caused havoc. Cue confusion and large legal budgets.

LafargeHolcim’s divestment of two cement plants to Birla Corporation was one casualty. As a condition of the merger between Lafarge and Holcim the Competition Commission of India (CCI) required that the Jojobera and Sonadih cement plants in Eastern India be sold in 2015. Together the plants have a combined cement production capacity of 5.1Mt/yr. However the ambiguity over the 2015 MMDR Act clause on transfer of mining rights held the deal up. By February 2016 Birla Corporation had endured enough. It publicly complained about Lafarge India’s ‘inability’ to complete the deal and threatened legal action. LafargeHolcim retorted by asking the CCI if it could sell all of Lafarge India instead. It received the revised clearance and a new buyer is yet to be announced.

Another victim was UltraTech Cement in a previous attempt to buy Jaiprakash Associates’ cement assets. That time it was down to buy two integrated cement plants in Madhya Pradesh with a combined clinker production capacity of 5.2Mt/yr with associated mineral rights. The deal was agreed in December 2014 and then reported delayed in mid-2015. Finally, on 28 February 2016 the Bombay High Court rejected the deal, citing the MMDR Act as the prime cause.

Luckily for UltraTech Cement the story has a happy ending (so far) as it then announced that it was purchasing the majority of Jaiprakash Associates’ 22.4Mt/yr cement portfolio instead for US$2.4bn. It is hoped that the deal will be finalised by June 2017 but this partly depends on the MMDR Act being amended. Although UltraTech Cement have said they are looking at alternative routes to the deal in case the act isn’t amended.

Poor legal wording kiboshed at least two cement industry deals for over 10Mt/yr production capacity. Roughly, at the price UltraTech Cement is paying for its latest deal, that’s over US$1bn worth of Indian cement assets. Given the hard time the Indian cement industry had in 2015 the question should be asked regarding how much damage the MMDR Act amendment has done. One option for the beleaguered industry is to consolidate and cut its costs. This was massively delayed in 2015.

The proposed 2016 amendment to the MMDR Act reads as follows:

“Provided that where a mining lease has been granted otherwise than through auction and where mineral from such mining lease is being used for captive purpose, such mining lease will be permitted to be transferred subject to compliance with the terms and conditions as prescribed by the Central Government in this behalf.”

Let’s hope it does the trick this time.

India: UltraTech Cement has appointed K K Maheshwari as Managing Director and Additional Director for a period of four years with effect from 1 April 2016. Maheshwari is a chartered accountant with over 38 years of experience.

The post was previously held by O P Puranmalka, who will cease to be the company's Managing Director on 31 March 2016, but will continue as a Non-executive Director from 1 April 2016.

India: UltraTech Cement Ltd has reported that the tenure of S Rajgopal, Independent Director of the company, ended upon the conclusion of the annual general meeting of the company held on 28 August 2015.

This week we heard news of two potential bidders for Lafarge and Holcim divestments. However, for a change it was where they will not be bidding that was of interest: Brazil. India's UltraTech Cement and Colombia's Cementos Argos now seem to have no interest in developing their positions in South America's largest cement market, having both previously stated their interest.

The Brazilian assets to be sold are three integrated cement plants and two grinding plants that share a capacity of 3.6Mt/yr (as well as a one ready-mix plant). Cementos Argos came out and said that it would not be bidding. UltraTech's position is more of a rumour, given by 'a source close to the company' that was not revealed by local media. However, both stories suggest that Brazil is currently not a good place for cement producers to buy up assets.

The reasons for these decisions are related to the state of the Brazilian economy, which has seen sub 2% growth in the last 11 quarters. The economy actually contracted by 0.9% in the second quarter of 2014 and by 0.25% in the third quarter of 2014. A 0.2% rise in the fourth quarter will be negated by a fall of 0.28% in the first quarter of 2015. Over the course of 2015 the IMF forecasts growth of 1.4%.

Although Brazilian cement production has risen from around 40Mt/yr in 2006 to around 70Mt/yr in 2013, it has been growing by lower and lower amounts each year. In 2013, it rose by 1.5% year-on-year, down from a 6.7% rise in 2012, an 8.3% rise in 2011 and a near 16% rise in 2010. Taken along with the IMF's GDP growth forecast, there is a genuine chance that Brazilian cement sales could plateau in 2014 or 2015. There will certainly be better places to try to sell cement over the next couple of years, hence the eagerness with which Cementos Argos declared its position.

One country that Cementos Argos has said it's looking at Lafarge and Holcim assets in is Mexico. Its economy is anticipated to grow by 3.5% in 2015, more than twice as quickly as Brazil and far more than the Americas as a whole (2.2%). Another anticipated strong performer in 2015 will be the US (3.1%), where Cementos Argos acquired assets in 2013. This week also saw the news that the Portland Cement Association's 8.1% cement consumption forecast for 2014 will be met.

Taking this all together, it appears that economic growth, and hence cement demand growth, will return to North America in earnest in 2015. Meanwhile South America's largest market is starting to lag behind. How will the rest of the two continents fare in 2015 and beyond?

India: UltraTech Cement has appointed Atul Daga as Chief Financial Officer of the company in place of KC Birla with effect from 1 December 2014. The decision was made at a board of directors meeting on 18 October 2014. The term of appointment of the managing director OP Puranmalka was extended for a period of one year until 31 March 2016.

India: UltraTech Cement Limited has appointed Sukanya Kripalu and Renuka Ramnath as additional independent directors with effect from 11 October 2014.