Analysis

One big story in India in recent weeks has been the start of action by the central government to tackle rising cement prices. First it reduced tax duties on petrol and diesel in late May 2022. Finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman also said that they were looking at ways of improving the availability of cement in the country, including better logistics, to help lower its cost. A delay to a change in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) rate structure is also being considered to slow inflation generally. Local press then reported a few days later that the government had set up a panel to explore ways of reducing the price of cement by distributing supplies better around the country. Specifically, it was talking to the South India Cement Manufacturers’ Association to work out ways for their members to meet the rising demand in other parts of the country. Reported options included looking at better use of rail and sea connections.

Chart 1: Map of Indian regions showing integrated/clinker production capacity per capita. Note: the chart does not include standalone grinding plant capacity. Source: Global Cement Directory, Indian census data. Map image adapted from Filpro CC BY-SA 4.0.

The map above (Chart 1) summarises the general problem the country faces from a clinker production point of view. More clinker can be produced in the south of the country than elsewhere. This map is partly a reflection where the limestone reserves are. However, it does not show that the East region of India has a higher concentration of cement grinding plants than elsewhere. Additionally, a number of new integrated/clinker plants have been built in the East and more have been proposed. The data in Chart 1 suggests that India has an integrated production capacity of 312kg/capita nationally. This compares to a cement consumption of 200 – 250kg/capita as reported by the ratings agency Crisil.

Data from Crisil indicates that cement prices grew by 9% from the start of 2021 to March 2022. A similar rise of 8.1% month-on-month was reported in April 2022. It is not a direct comparison but retail inflation in India was reported as being 7.8% in April 2022. The cause of this has been blamed on a general tightening in energy supplies in the autumn of 2021 followed by the effects of the war in Ukraine that started in early 2022. Rising international coal and petcoke prices have made manufacturing cement more expensive. Growing petrol and diesel prices have made moving it around costlier still. Looking at the cement market generally, Crisil noted that demand for cement grew sharply in the first half of the 2022 financial year but then slowed in the second half due to poor weather, issues with sand supply and a labour shortage. The ratings agency has forecast stable growth in the 2023 financial year but with the caveat that the mounting costs of construction, including building materials, could dent this.

The fundamentals for the world’s second largest cement market look good as Adani Group’s recent deal to buy Holcim’s Indian assets for US$6.34bn attests. This won’t be much comfort for end-users though who are watching the price of cement rocket upwards. Yet how far the central government will be able to help the southern cement producers move their wares around more easily remain to be seen. If it succeeds, it may slow the rise in prices but it seems unlikely to halt it. The reaction of the more northerly producers is also key, since one option they have is to slacken their own price increases by just enough to fight off the new competition. Already they are facing the dilemma of raising their prices to cover input costs versus the effect this may have on overall demand. All of this looks set to put pressure on the producers’ margins. Indian cement prices look set to go up whatever happens next, making everyone unhappy. Some may be more unhappy than others.

More mergers and acquisition news emerged this week in the shape of potential buyers for Sika’s US admixtures business. Reporting from Bloomberg revealed that Holcim, HeidelbergCement and Turkey-based Sabancı Holding had all made it, amongst other unnamed companies, to a second round of bidding for the assets. Sika then confirmed this to the Finanz und Wirtschaft newspaper and added that the sale would also relate to Canadian assets as well. The intention here is to bypass the risk of a lengthy competition investigation in the US.

Switzerland-based Sika announced in November 2021 that it had signed a deal to buy MBCC Group from Lone Star Funds, a global private equity firm, for Euro5.2bn. At the time of the announcement Sika said that the transaction was subject to regulatory approval but it added that it was ‘confident’ that all required clearances would be obtained with closure planned for the second half of 2022. Known competition probes are now pending in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. A previous piece from Bloomberg suggested that internal analysis by Sika found that the company might need to divest operations with annual sales of around US$160m with a value of US$400m. However, the latest update suggests a value of up to US$1bn. The US represented US$1.71bn or 18% of Sika’s total group sales in 2021. Sika’s information to shareholders to let them know about the MBCC acquisition in November 2021, showed that MBCC had sales of around US$966m in the Americas in 2021 with 36 production plants. Overall, not just in the US, the deal is expected to change Sika’s technology mix from 40% concrete and cement systems to 49%, with most of the additions coming from concrete applications.

Divestments were always likely in an acquisition this large between competitors with shared geographies. What is interesting here to the cement sector is that the three named interested parties are all cement producers. Holcim is perhaps the least surprising given its size, pivot towards light building materials and the fact that its current head, Jan Jenisch, used to run Sika. If anyone knows how much an admixture company is worth, it’s the guy who ran one five years ago! HeidelbergCement does not have such a large light building materials business footprint but it is demonstrably interested in making heavy building material production more sustainable. Also, as the world’s second largest western multinational cement producer it is likely to be interested in an input market for some of its end products. Sabancı Holding is the outlier in this grouping with a more regional grey cement business based in Turkey, an international white cement business and a diverse set of business interests including finance and energy. Although, even as the smallest of the bunch, it still reported sales revenue of over US$9bn in 2021. One notable absence from the potential contenders list for Sika USA is Cemex. Its Urbanisation Solutions division, which produces admixtures among other products, reported sales of US$1.9bn in 2021 or 13% of the group’s total revenue. US$558m of this was made in the US.

The wider context in the North American admixture market is that the announcement of Sika’s deal with MBCC in November 2021 was followed about a month later when Saint-Gobain said it had entered into a deal to buy GCP Applied Technologies. This followed Saint-Gobain’s acquisition of Chryso in October 2021. However, Saint-Gobain said that the GCP deal would strengthen its position more in North America. Readers can find out more about Saint-Gobain’s ambitions here.

The final word at this stage should go on Lone Star Funds, the current owner of MBCC. Lone Star Funds bought the construction chemicals business from BASF for Euro3.17bn in September 2020. At the time the acquisition closed Saori Dubourg, a member of the board of executive directors of BASF, said “Lone Star has been a professional partner in this transaction and is committed to the future success of the business.” If the reporting is correct, Lone Star Funds is now selling the same business for over Euro5bn. There are two takeaways to consider at this point. One is that the perceived value of products that make cement and concrete more sustainable are growing. The other is that Lone Star Funds timed its acquisition of MBCC from BASF very well.

Holcim agreed to sell its Indian assets to Adani Group this week for US$6.37bn. These include Holcim’s stakes in its local subsidiaries Ambuja Cement and ACC. The deal, if approved by the local competition body, should complete in the second half of 2022. This is one of the larger sales of cement company assets over the last decade. Adani Group, an Indian-based conglomerate with businesses across energy, transport and more, is now poised to become the second largest cement producer in India.

Global Cement Weekly previously covered a potential sale of Ambuja Cement and ACC in April 2022 when the story that Holcim was looking for a buyer first emerged in the Indian press. At the time local press speculated that the sale could generate as much as US$15bn for Holcim. So it is interesting to see that a figure of US$6.37bn has been agreed upon instead, less than half of the speculative figure. Roughly, as ever, this places a value of a little below US$100/t of cement production capacity. This seems like a relatively low pricing for these plants by international standards over the last decade. However, this doesn’t take into account many factors such as, for example, the condition of the plants, Holcim’s desire to change its business, the ease of selling up in India all in one go, other non-cement assets and so on. For Adani Group though, buying into heavy building materials production in a large market like India clearly seemed attractive. It is also worth noting that, similar to other cement sector acquisitions recently, here again is a buyer with a background in another carbon-heavy industry buying into another heavy emitter.

Table 1: Selected large scale acquisitions of controlling shares in non-Chinese cement production assets since 2012. Source: Global Cement news and company releases. Italcementi acquisition value reported by Reuters.

Table 1 above provides some historical context to Adani Group’s agreed acquisition by comparing it to other large completed deals in the cement sector over the last decade. Don’t forget that it is only looking at this from the cement sector. This list excludes changes in ownership in the Chinese cement companies in this period because, generally, there has been a government-driven consolidation in the industry through mergers rather than large-scale acquisitions. So, for example, the world’s current biggest cement producer CNBM had a reported production capacity of 350Mt/yr in 2012 and this rose to 514Mt/yr in 2020 as it absorbed other state-owned companies. The big merger it underwent during this time was with China National Materials (Sinoma) in 2018, primarily an engineering company that also produced cement.

The most obvious trend in Table 1 is the journey of Lafarge and Holcim from their merger in 2015 and the gradual realignment of the business subsequently. During this time the company has sold up in large markets outside of its core regions in Europe and North America. Latterly, it has also started to diversify away from heavy into lightweight building materials. One notable ‘nearly happened’ was LafargeHolcim’s attempt to sell its business in the Philippines to San Miguel Corporation for US$2.15bn in 2019. That deal collapsed when the Philippines Competition Authority failed to approve it within a year of its proposal. CRH enlarged itself from assets sold during the creation of LafargeHolcim and then picked up Ash Grove in the US in 2018. CRH’s head Albert Manifold memorably said in 2018 that his company was focusing on markets in developed countries and CRH’s large-scale acquisitions have largely followed this.

As for the others, HeidelbergCement’s purchase of Italcementi in 2016 almost appeared as a riposte to the formation of LafargeHolcim, albeit on a slightly smaller scale. It confirmed HeidelbergCement’s place as the world’s second largest non-Chinese cement producer. It is also one of the minority of truly multinational acquisitions on this list. Unlike LafargeHolcim and now Holcim though, HeidelbergCement hasn’t exhibited a desire to downsize or diversify at quite the same speed. UltraTech Cement’s acquisition of Jaiprakash Associates in 2017 confirmed its place as the largest Indian producer. That deal was publicly one of the longer lasting one as it originally started out in at least 2014 on a smaller scale and was later slowed down by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) Amendment Act. Smikon’s purchase of Eurocement in 2021 almost looks like part of the isolation of the Russian economy, especially with the benefit of hindsight given by the invasion of the Ukraine in early 2022.

Mega-deals have lots of moving parts but two of the most tangible to broader audiences are the price and the timing. Cemex infamously got both of these wrong with its acquisition of Rinker in 2007 as it paid high just as the US subprime mortgage crisis started a wider global financial one. This was despite Cemex’s emergence over the previous 15 years as a multinational force to be reckoned with due in part to the so-called ‘Cemex Way’ approach to management, acquisitions and integration. Clear winners from the big acquisitions over the last decade are harder to spot but CRH and UltraTech Cement look strong so far. Adani Group has certainly picked a lively time to make a purchase on this scale following a global pandemic with ongoing global supply chain issues and disruptions to energy and food markets.

China Daily ran a story this week entitled “Steel and cement don't reflect China's growth story any more.” The piece reassured English-language readers that the country’s economy is moving on and that recent falling production of cement simply reflected the “profound changes China's economic structure is undergoing.” Profound is the right word here given that China is home to the world’s largest cement sector.

Graph 1: Cement output by quarter in China, 2019 - 2022. Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China.

Data from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology shows that cement output fell by 12% year-on-year to 387Mt in the first quarter of 2022. This compares to 7% and 15% falls in the third and fourth quarters of 2021 respectively. On an annual cumulative rolling basis, output previously hit a low of 2.22Bnt in March 2020 as the initial coronavirus outbreak was brought under control. Output then surged to a high of 2.53Bnt/yr in April 2021 before it started to fall in the autumn of 2021. On a monthly basis, output volumes fell by 5.6% year-on-year to 187Mt in March 2022.

As covered in last week’s column (GCW 555), the financial results from the larger Chinese cement producers have also suffered in the first quarter of 2022. CNBM’s total operating revenue fell by 1% year-on-year to US$7.29bn in the first quarter of 2022. Anhui Conch’s revenue fell by 26% to US$3.85bn and China Resources Cement’s (CRC) turnover fell by 18% to US$889m. Of these three only CRC has released cement sales volumes. Its sales volumes of cement and clinker decreased by 34% and 12% respectively.

In its own analysis, the China Cement Association (CCA) has summarised the current situation as one of rising costs, falling demand and declining benefits. The latest large-scale coronavirus lockdowns and a poor real estate market have hit demand. Rising energy and freight prices have increased the cost of cement. Together, higher costs and falling demand have hit the profits of the cement producers. CNBM’s net profit, for example, fell by 9% to US$420m. Regionally, the CCA observed that the losses of the northern-based producers had increased and that the profits of the southern producers had started to fall sharply also. Another interesting point it made was that the year-on-year decline in March 2022 was slower than compared to the first quarter as a whole and that high levels of inventory may have made March 2022 look worse than it actually was. The association is now pinning its hopes upon demand and prices picking up again later in the second quarter after the current quarantine controls are eased and the government curbs high coal prices.

The CCA’s take doesn’t seem unreasonable, although the first quarter of 2022 was previously deemed to be a continuation of the trouble the Chinese cement sector experienced in the autumn of 2021. Possibly the first quarter has turned out worse than expected but the monthly output in March 2022 has started to look like it might be a tail-off from the worst. The period to watch remains the second quarter of 2022. Looking more widely, energy shocks from the war in Ukraine couldn’t be easily predicted but coal prices were already becoming a concern in the autumn of 2021. China’s renewed zero-Covid policy meanwhile is starting to look unpalatable both economically and socially. Throw in a continued slowdown of the real estate sector and China Daily’s profound pronouncement about the future of cement may prove accurate.

Many first quarter financial results for cement producers are out already and what can be seen so far deserves discussion. The first observation is that the sales revenues of Chinese companies have suffered compared to their international peers. As can be seen in Graph 1 (below) CNBM increased its sales slightly in the first quarter of 2022 but Anhui Conch and China Resources Cement (CRC) had significant falls. Stronger results from CNBM’s non-cement production subsidiaries released so far suggest that the parent company’s slow performance is likely due to the cement market. The China Cement Association has reported that national cement output dropped by 12% year-on-year to 387Mt in the first quarter of 2022. It blamed this on the latest local coronavirus wave, limited construction project funds and poor weather.

Graph 1: Sales revenues in the first quarter of 2022 from selected cement producers. Source: Company financial reports. Note: SCG data is for its building materials division only.

Outside of China sales revenue growth has been better with Holcim and Dangote Cement leading the companies presented here. Holcim attributed its success to “strong demand, acquisitions and pricing”. Demand and pricing have been familiar refrains in many of the results reports this quarter. The undertone though has been the destabilising effects upon energy prices by the ongoing war in Ukraine. Holcim’s head Jan Jenisch summed it up as navigating “challenging times, from the pandemic to geopolitical uncertainty.” The producers with operations in the Americas and Europe seem to have coped with this so far mostly due to resurgent markets. Quarterly sales revenue growth for Holcim, CRH (not shown in the graphs) and Cemex each exceeded 10% year-on-year in both of these regions.

The regionally focused companies presented here have suffered more. India-based UltraTech Cement said that its energy costs grew by 48%, with prices of petcoke and coal doubling during the period. Nigeria-based Dangote Cement reported that its group sales volumes were down 3.6% mainly due to energy supply challenges in Nigeria. Internationally, its operations relying on cement and clinker imports – in Ghana, Sierra-Leone and Cameroon – were also hit by high freight rates caused by global supply chain issues. Thailand-based SCG said that national demand for cement demand fell by 3% due to negative geopolitical effects causing inflation, a delay to the recovery of tourism and a generally subdued market.

Graph 2: Cement sales volumes in the first quarter of 2022 from selected cement producers. Source: Company financial reports.

It’s too early to read much into it but one final point is worth considering from cement sales volumes in the first quarter of 2022. They have appeared to fall for the companies that have actually released the data. The reasons for CRC in China and Dangote Cement in Sub-Saharan Africa have been covered above. Holcim’s volume decline was 2% on a like-for-like basis and the others were all very small changes.

To summarise, it’s been a good quarter for those cement producers covered here with operations in North American and Europe. Energy instability caused by the war in Ukraine so far seems to have been passed on to consumers through higher prices with no apparent ill effect. The regional producers have suffered more, with the Chinese ones having to cope with falling demand and the others finding it harder to absorb mounting energy costs and supply chain issues. Plenty more first quarter results are due from other cement companies in the next few days and weeks and it will be interesting to see whether these trends hold or if others are taking place.