Analysis

Predictably, the recent investigation by the Tariff Commission in the Philippines on whether to maintain duties on imported cement recommended that the safeguard duty be kept. It even suggested raising the rate to nearly US$6/t from US$4/t at present. The report has been passed to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), which will make the final decision on the matter.

Graph 1: Market share of the Philippines cement industry between local producers and traders, 2013 - 2018. Source: Tariff Commission of the Philippines.

As the commission built its argument it released a great snapshot of the local cement industry and it’s well worth a read for anyone who is interested. One key graph here was the speed at which the market share of cement sold by local producers fell compared to importers from 2013 to 2018. As Graph 1 shows above, traders imported 0.29Mt in 2015 and this rose to 4.66Mt 2018. Imports by local producers also grew during this time but at a far slower rate. They were 0.45Mt in 2015, grew to a high of 1.65Mt in 2016 and then stabilised at around 1Mt/yr since then. Seven of the top 10 cement exporters were Vietnamese companies followed by two from China and one from Thailand. However, the local producers were importing clinker on a far larger scale during this period. 16.8Mt of clinker was imported from 2013 to 2018 led by Holcim Philippines with 5.54Mt or a 33% share. In Holcim’s case this was coming from China, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam.

Elsewhere, the report established the various production capacity upgrades the local cement producers had invested in or were planning to in the near future. Taiheiyo Cement Philippines, for example, was reported as planning an expansion to its Cebu plant production line from 2022 to 2025. It then looked at kiln capacity utilisation rates, prices and how profits have changed amongst much else. It concluded that the import surge from 2015 to 2018 had depressed prices and decreased the profitability of the local producers. This fitted its definition of ‘serious injury’ as one reason to impose a safeguard duty on imports.

Importers presented a different scenario to the commission during its investigation and afterwards. Phinma, for example, told local press that the commission’s comparison calculation of the costs behind local and imported cement didn’t take into all the costs the importers endured such as a local distribution and handling once in the country. The Philippines Cement Importers Association reiterated the view of its members that they were simply meeting market demand, that local producers had caused their own problems through overcapacity and that profits varied considerably amongst local producers, amongst other arguments. This has been borne out by some of the half-year results amongst the local producers. Eagle Cement, for example, saw its earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) grow by 21% year-on-year to US$80.6m.

With the publication of the commission’s report the DTI has been handed the impetus to hold up or even raise the duty on imported cement. Based on its actions in recent years the ministry seems likely to do so. This presents a contrast to Trinidad & Tobago where importer Rock Hard Cement won a legal battle earlier in August 2019 against competitor and Cemex-subsidiary Trinidad Cement over the classification of imported cement products. These kinds of trade conflicts are likely to proliferate whilst global production capacity outstrips demand but the outcomes may vary.

One of the summer news stories in the UK has been the drama surrounding the near-failure of dam near Whaley Bridge in Derbyshire. Concrete slabs on an overflow spillway fell away after a period of heavy rain leading to fears that the dam could fail inundating the area. Around 1500 local residents were evacuated for about a week as a precaution until the reservoir’s water level could be pumped down low enough for inspection.

No one was hurt in the incident but it has raised questions about the maintenance and renewal of infrastructure and how this fits with changing weather patterns caused by anthropogenic climate change. A sadder example of this is the collapse of the Morandi Bridge in Genoa, Italy in August 2018 that killed 43 people. This was later blamed on decaying steel rods in the structure. There have been similar debates in the US with President Donald Trump’s on-going attempts to push through a US$2tn infrastructure bill to repair the country’s structures. Although, predictably, it is floundering on the question of who is actually going to pay for it all.

In the UK, for example, cement production hit a high of over 15Mt in the late 1980s before declining to a low of 7.6Mt in 2009 and eventually climbing to above 9Mt/yr since 2015. A big cause of that decline was the 2008 financial crash and the subsequent government austerity policies. Yet, even with this taken into account, production was at around 11Mt/yr in the 2000s. How much, if any, of this production capacity gap of at least 4Mt between the late 1980s and the 2000s might be needed to maintain the country’s infrastructure? Southern Mediterranean countries like Spain and Italy offer even starker examples. Italy’s cement production fell to 19.3Mt in 2017 from nearly 40Mt in 2001. Spain’s production hit a high of around 50Mt/yr in 2007 with apparent production (local consumption and exports) falling to around 20Mt in 2018. Much of these declines are due to loss of export markets but the same basic questions remain about how much capacity will be required in the future to maintain and repair existing structures in developed nations. This could be imported but the usual constraints about moving heavy building materials around inland mean than at least some of this cement will need to manufactured locally.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated in 2010 that the world would need 50Bnt of cement between 2015 and 2030. The global cement industry was already producing around 3.5Bnt/yr in 2015 according to the Global Cement Directory 2015 giving it overcapacity even then towards the estimated target. Global production capacity is just under 4Bnt/yr today. Estimates for the cost of global infrastructure requirements in this period range from US$1Tnr/yr to US$6Tnr/yr. The majority of this will go towards new infrastructure in developing countries but a minority portion will be required for maintenance. One study by the Brookings Institution and the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate estimated that developed countries would need around US$2Tn/yr for their infrastructure bills.

A study by management consultants McKinsey & Company in late 2017 reckoned that there was a worldwide US$55Tn spending gap between then and 2035 for infrastructure spending. It estimated that countries like the UK, Germany and the US needed to increase their annual spending on infrastructure as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) by 0.5%. Although Italy only needed to improve by 0.2%. Looking at the change in infrastructure investment rates suggests that the European Union (EU) actually started to improve its investment from 2013 to 2015 by 0.2% but that the US did not.

All of this goes to show that the show is definitely not over for building materials producers in developed countries. These industries may be mature but they should not be complacent. Roads need patching up, bridges need replacing and all sorts of other infrastructure projects are required even in places that have them already.

With a good number of the financial results published by the non-Chinese multinational cement producers for the first half of 2019, it is now time for a roundup. Graphs 1 and 2 below lay some of the basics with the general sales revenue and cement production volume trends.

Graph 1: Sales revenues from large multinational cement producers in the first half of 2019 and 2018. Source: Company reports.

Graph 2: Cement sales volumes from large multinational cement producers in first half of 2019 and 2018. Source: Company reports.

This is only part of the picture as the larger companies had various complications. For example, LafargeHolcim’s apparent falling revenue and sales volumes is mainly due to its massive divestments in South-East Asia. On a like-for-like basis its sales and sales volumes of cement rose. Its recurring earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) better illustrated this with a rise of 7.2% year-on-year in real-terms to Euro2.41bn in the first half of 2019 from Euro2.25bn from 2018. The company didn’t have it all its own way though with falling cement sales volumes in Asia despite the divestment and poor growth in its Middle East Africa region.

By contrast HeidelbergCement reported growing sales but its earnings and profits were down. Its profit fell by 33% to Euro291m from Euro435m. This was blamed on the group’s sale of its Ukraine subsidiary in April 2019. The operations were sold to Overin Limited, part of Ukrainian investment company Concorde Capital Group, for Euro13m. HeidelbergCement said that the divestment resulted in a loss of Euro143m. Aside from this, as Bernd Scheifele, the chairman of the managing board of HeidelbergCement, explained, positives in markets in Asia, Western and Southern Europe compensated for weaker business in North America and the Africa-Eastern Mediterranean Basin Group area.

Cemex has a tougher time of it than its larger rivals due its greater reliance on American markets. Slow starts to infrastructure projects were blamed in Mexico, poor weather hit earnings in the US and problems occurred further south too. Luckily Europe was strong for the company with lots of good news areas. It wasn’t enough though as Cemex’s sales fell by 4% to US$6.72bn from US$7bn and its operating EBITDA dropped by 11% to US$1.21bn from US$1.36bn.

As for the other companies covered in the graphs, Buzzi Unicem and Titan Group prospered due to the US market. The former described its US activity as ‘lively.’ However, it admitted that its sales growth there was mainly caused by falling imports in the face of weak domestic demand and ‘considerable production and logistical difficulties’ in June 2019 caused by flooding of the Mississippi river. Titan, meanwhile, caught a well-deserved break after recent years with growth also in Greece and Southeastern Europe. Vicat managed to stave off a decline in sales due to poor markets in Turkey, Switzerland, Indian and West Africa through its acquisition of Brazil’s Ciplan in late 2018. Yet, its earnings and cement sales volumes fell anyway.

Dangote Cement once again suffered at home in Nigeria, while its Pan Africa business grew. Trouble at home was pinned on lower volumes, price discounting, higher input and distribution costs and higher fuel and power costs in the first half of 2019. Of more concern, earnings fell in Pan Africa too in the first half due to market conditions in South Africa and Zambia. As ever though Dangote Cement’s diversity in Sub-Saharan Africa should see it through. Finally, Semen Indonesia continued to ride high as its sales increased by 23% to US$1.17bn due to its absorption of LafargeHolcim’s assets. Unsurprisingly, its sales volumes grew at a similar rate, to just below 13Mt in the first five months of 2019. Yet trouble may be store ahead as its local sales fell by 7% in this period.

Other major producers omitted here include Ireland’s CRH and India’s UltraTech Cement. Both are set to release their results later in August 2019 and will make for essential reading as the market conditions so far in 2019 become clearer. The latter in particular will be worth watching if a report by Indian credit agency CARE Ratings out this week is correct. It has forecast production capacity growth of 120Mt by 2030 in India. UltraTech Cement is perfectly poised to benefit from this.

The agreement this week by Ciments du Maroc to buy two production projects from Anouar Invest Group marks a consolidation phase in the local market. The subsidiary of Germany’s HeidelbergCement has struck a deal to acquire Atlantic Cement’s 2.2Mt/yr integrated plant project in Settat province and the Les Cimenteries Marocaines du Sud (CIMSUD) 0.5Mt/yr grinding plant at Laâyoune, which was only recently commissioned.

Graph 1: Cement sales and production capacity in Morocco, 2013 - 2018. Source: L’Association Professionnelle des Cimentiers (APC) & Global Cement Directory 2019.

Graph 1 gives an impression of the market conditions the cement producers have faced over the past five years. Cement sales hit of a high of 16.1Mt in 2011 following increasing growth in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Cement sales have since wilted, while production capacity has increased pushing down the capacity utilisation rate. The capacity utilisation dropped below 55% in 2018, using Global Cement Directory 2019 data, although other sources have placed it at around 60%.

Local production is dominated by two multinational producers, LafargeHolcim (LafargeHolcim Maroc) and HeidelbergCement (Ciments du Maroc), and a local company, Ciments de l’Atlas (CIMAT). CIMAT is owned by Addoha Group and it also operates Ciments de l'Afrique (CIMAF) with plants across West Africa. A fourth player, Asment de Témara, run by Votorantim, also operates an integrated plant.

LafargeHolcim Maroc’s turnover fell by 2% year-on-year to US$837m in 2018 along with a drop in consolidated net income of 18% to US$201m. It attributed this to lower sales and growing petcoke costs. Ciments du Maroc’s turnover fell slightly to US$419m but its net profit rose by 3% to US$108m. This followed a generally positive year in 2017 due to a strong second half of the year. It blamed the instability on a poor real estate market. CIMAT managed to raise its sales in 2018 by 6% to US$300m and its income by 1.4% to US$90.7m.

Anouar Invest Group’s decision to sell up may mean that its attempt to break into the cement market has failed. Who can blame it given the market conditions. Although, who knows, HeidelbergCement may have made it a great offer. HeidelbergCement’s gambit is also interesting because, in February 2019, it reduced its stake in Ciments du Maroc by 7.8% to 54.6% signalling less confidence in the country.

Yet, cement sales started to improve in the first quarter of 2019 with consecutive month-on-month improvements. Neither is Anouar Invest Group the last company to try its luck with cement production in Morocco. In June 2019 FLSmdith announced that TEKCIM had ordered a US$45m cement plant from it and Société Générale des Travaux du Maroc. The grinding unit has a production capacity of 1.2Mt/yr. Clearly, despite a market with production overcapacity, companies are sensing opportunities with the cement grinding model.

Two new stories from Algeria this week highlight a changing industry. Firstly, Groupe Industriel des Ciments d’Algérie (GICA) started marketing cement from its new Sigus integrated plant. The unit was commissioned earlier in the year. Secondly, clinker export figures for the sector show 10-fold growth year-on-year to a value of US$30m for the first five months of 2019.

Graph 1: Cement production and capacity in Algeria, 2012 - 2018. Source: Algerian National Office of Statistics, United States Geological Survey, Global Cement Directory 2013 - 2019. Estimates supplied for 2017 and 2018.

Graph 1 above depicts the moment that lots of new production capacity started to be ordered and then commissioned in 2017. The Global Cement Directory lists new plant projects as they are announced so the trend from 2016 to 2017 may not be as pronounced as it seems but the general destination remains the same. A Ministry of Industry and Mining report estimated that production capacity would reach 40Mt/yr in 2020. Consumption was reported at 26Mt in 2016.

To cope with this the cement industry in Algeria has been moving towards an export model over the last few years. Industry and government figures started to warn of an end to imports in 2016. This quickly flipped to prognostications of production overcapacity in 2017. This then became a stream of news stories about export operations from the local industries to places like West Africa. One consequence of this were problems for foreign exporters in Tunisia and Spain, for example, as the Algerian market was shut off. Indeed, it must have been satisfying for state-producer and market leader GICA to announce that it was exporting cement to Europe in 2018!

Notably the local market has no cement grinding plants, yet this too has started to change. In May 2019 Algematco Steel ordered a modular Ready2Grind MVR vertical roller mill from Germany’s Gebr. Pfeiffer. Target markets for the exports identified by the Ministry of Industry and Mining included neighbouring Mali, Libya, Mauritania and Niger. However, only two of these countries are accessible by sea. Unfortunately, Libya’s resurgence in violence since April 2019 is unlikely to help the export market. The other countries share land borders with Algeria but no rail links. An overland export operation to Niger from a plant near Adrar was reported in early 2019 but feasibility on a large scale seems unlikely given the distances involved.

LafargeHolcim said in its 2018 financial report that its net sales were down in its Middle East and African region due to price pressure and lower volumes in oversupplied markets, particularly in Algeria, Iraq and Jordan. Bloomberg reported in February 2019 that LafargeHolcim was considering divesting assets in the region. However, LafargeHolcim’s exit from Southeast Asia may have since bought it some financial breathing room.

With Algeria facing a production capacity gap of at least 10Mt/yr it seems likely that foreign-backed producers like LafargeHolcim will suffer despite potential in the local economy. Nationally, the race is on to see if the industry can bring its cement to the sea and find new export markets.