Displaying items by tag: Cemex

Talk of US tariffs on imports from Mexico was not troubling the National Chamber of Cement (CANACEM) this week. Director general Yanina Navarro pointed out to local media that Mexico only exports 1.42Mt or 3.4% of its total production of 44Mt/yr to its northern neighbour. This is a little higher than the 1.04Mt reported by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in 2018, although that figure is believed to have underestimated imports to El Paso district in Texas. Mexico was the fifth largest exporter of hydraulic cement and clinker to the US behind Canada, Turkey, China and Greece.

Commentators pointed out that Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua (GCC) might be affected more that other Mexican producers as two of its plants are close to the border at Samalayuca and Juárez in Chihuahua. However, GCC operates five plants in the US. Cemex also has a plant near the US border at Ensenada in Baja California. Yet it’s the fourth largest producer in the US by integrated production capacity. If either company had its export markets seriously disrupted by any border duties they could likely focus on production in the US to compensate.

Once again this is similar to the situation with the proposed border wall where, although President Donald Trump wanted Mexico to pay, it would have been Mexican companies benefiting the most from any construction boom. This was also the case with the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the successor to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The international structure of many of the larger Mexican cement producers insulates them from these kinds of political and trade disputes.

Mexican producers shouldn’t be too complacent though. Tariffs are likely to play havoc with integrated supply chains as in the car industry. Building materials will probably be affected less so but that 1.42Mt export figure is more than the production capacity of many individual Mexican cement plants. Taking away this export market will drag on the industry’s utilisation rate and alternate destinations may be hard to find. Note the trouble Mexico has had distributing its products in Peru. The Supreme Court there upheld a fine this week on UNACEM for trying to block the distribution of Cemex’s brand of cement in 2014. Also, although Trump’s tariffs on Chinese products may not have much of an impact on building materials, USGS data shows that Chinese imports of cement to the US fell by 27% year-on-year to 0.76Mt in the six months to the end of February 2019. Similar reductions could await Mexico’s exporters.

The general consensus from the free market press is that tariffs will ultimately hurt both economies. In agreement the Portland Cement Association (PCA) published a market report in April 2018 on the effects of tariffs on US cement consumption in the wake of tariffs on steel and aluminium imports from the European Union (EU), Canada and Mexico. The summary was that all forms of tariff – from minor to a global trade war – would likely result in reduced US cement consumption to varying degrees due to slower economic growth. A full-scale set of tariffs on Mexican imports is likely to induce similar consequences.

Good news for Cemex Colombia this week with an agreement reached to open its Maceo cement plant in Antioquia. Local media was reporting that the cement producer has struck a government-brokered deal with CI Calizas y Minerales to lease the land it built its plant on. Finally, the new(ish) US$350m integrated plant can start operation.

For those unfamiliar with the debacle, Cemex has been fighting the fallout publicly since 2016, following a dodgy land deal at the site. The 1Mt/yr integrated Maceo plant was originally announced in 2014 with full operation scheduled for late 2016. Then, in October 2016 Cemex fired several senior staff members in relation to the project and its subsidiary’s chief executive resigned. This followed an internal audit and investigation into payments worth around US$20m made to a non-government third party in connection with the acquisition of the land, mining rights and benefits of the tax free zone for the project. Other irregularities are also alleged to be linked to the project. As well as the Colombian authorities being involved, the US Department of Justice is also running its own investigation into the affair with wider implications for Cemex’s operations in other Latin American countries. Some of the sacked staff members and others have since been investigated on corruption charges.

Graph 1: Cement production in Colombia, 2010 – 2018. Source: DANE.

Looking at the wider Colombian market though, it does make one wonder whether the long-delayed plant is really necessary. As Graph 1 shows, cement production rose steadily year-on-year to 2015 before it hit a downturn. It reached a high of 13Mt in 2015 before declining. Production in 2018 grew slightly compared to 2017 but not at the same rate seen previously. In Antioquia specifically despatches increased by 1.3% in 2018, above the national average of 0.2%. Despatches now appear to have continued into January and February 2019.

Cemex Colombia started to benefit from an improved fourth quarter in 2018 as the general economy picked up. Despite this its overall net sales and operating earnings fell in 2018. However, it did flag its earnings margin as a concern with higher freight and energy costs in the fourth quarter of 2018, although it partially offset this with higher prices. Cementos Argos, the other big producer in Colombia, reported a similar picture to Cemex, although in a better position. Its cement volumes fell slightly for the year in 2018 but picked up fast in the fourth quarter. Annual revenue was down slightly, as were adjusted earnings. In its opinion the construction industry improved in the second half of 2018 due to an improved housing market and infrastructure projects.

Given the downturn in production since 2015 the thought does occur whether the opening of the Maceo plant being delayed accidentally helped Cemex or not. It has probably been losing money by not running the plant but if, for example, the company had some sort of insurance to protect it against unexpected delays it might still benefit. However, if evidence of serious wider misconduct in both Colombia and other Latin American countries are found by the US authorities, then things could get expensive. This would be unfortunate, particularly in Colombia, given that the market looks set to recover.

All the major multinational cement producers reported growing sales in 2018. Yet, the big growth was found outside of Europe, with China Resources Cement (CRC), Ultratech Cement and Dangote Cement all posting sales revenue growth of above 10%. Similarly, cement sales volumes continued to rise. CRC and Ultratech Cement were the standouts here, with the latter benefitting from its acquisitions including, most recently, Binani Cement. Concrete sales volumes were the same, rising for all the companies with the exception of Buzzi Unicem. It suffered market issues in Italy and Germany.

Graph 1: Sales revenue from selected multinational cement producers in 2017 and 2018 (Euro billions). Source: Company financial reports.

Graph 2: Cement sales volumes from selected multinational cement producers in 2017 and 2018 (Mt). Source: Company financial reports.

Graph 3: Ready-mixed concrete sales volumes from selected multinational concrete producers in 2017 and 2018 (Mm³). Source: Company financial reports.

With the major Chinese producers, including CNBM and Anhui Conch, yet to release their annual results for 2018, CRC is included in this roundup to give an idea of how that market is performing. Both CNBM and Anhui Conch have released profit alerts anticipating bumper results in 2018 though. This is likely due to boosted local cement prices.

The major story for the European-based producers was one of asset sales and debt reduction. LafargeHolcim returned to positive income in 2018 with a focus on its Strategy 2022 programme. HeidelbergCement’s earnings were hit by poor weather in the US and insufficient divestments. Cemex, although based in Mexico, retains a significant European presence and so it included here. It suffered from poor sales outside of its base in Mexico and the US. CRH continued on its trajectory as the world’s biggest building materials company with solid sales and earnings growth. Interestingly though given its expansion strategy in recent years CRH’s debt to earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBTIDA) ratio remains better than the other three majors above, even after its purchase of Ash Grove Cement in mid-2018 taken into account. Although other financial comparisons are worth considering, such as EBITDA margin.

Despite Cemex’s relatively high net debt compared to its peers it has been cutting its debt the fastest, at 8% to US$10.4bn in 2018. Its current plan is to reach an ‘investment-grade’ balance sheet by 2020. LafargeHolcim and HeidelbergCement are in ‘cuts’ mode leading to all sorts of speculation about where they might sell next. The wilder rumours in the press include preparations by LafargeHolcim to sell its entire operation in the Middle East and Africa. Similar tales about a sale in the Philippines are more credible but remain unconfirmed. HeidelbergCement is keeping its cards closer to its chest but poor performing territories that might be up for sale include some of its Italian plants and parts of Africa.

Of the larger producers without a European presence, Ultratech Cement has been negatively effected by energy costs during the nine months to the end of 2018 with its income and EBITDA down. Dangote Cement’s performance in 2018 was driven by sales at home in Nigeria although earnings elsewhere continued to grow.

With all of this in mind the scene appears set for a breakout by a major Chinese producer to buy a big bolt-on acquisition or expansion by regional or national players along the lines of that seen by Semen Indonesia or UltraTech Cement. Taiwan Cement has been ahead here with its purchase of a 40% stake in Turkey’s Oyak Cement but what we’re really waiting for is a majority position within a country or territory. At which point CNBM and the like will have earned its place in the 2019 version of this article. Perhaps the age of truly multinational cement producer is coming to an end as regional players become more prominent.

The UAE is having a moment. Over the last week Fujairah Natural Resources, a new entrant to cement, said it is going to build a clinker plant at Habbab in Fujairah. It’s also looking likely that Raysut Cement might buy UAE-based Fujairah Cement Company’s shares in Sohar Cement in Oman. Then, Ras Al Khaimah (RAK) Cement announced that it had purchased the Newtech cement plant. What’s happening here?

The last couple of years have been tough ones for Emirati cement producers, which have been fighting falling sales and beleaguered profits. The largest producer, Arkan Building Materials - a group majority controlled by the Abu Dhabi government, reported flat sales growth for the first nine months of 2018. It blamed this on falling sales of clinker due to imports from Iran and a tough pricing environment. Its profits were hit by rising clinker production costs due to its reliance on imported limestone from Oman whilst it resolves problems with its own local quarry. Arkan had closed its Emirates Cement plant in Al Ain following revenue and profit falls in 2016. This story thread reached its end earlier in February 2019 when Arkan sold the closed plant for around US$14m. National Cement reported a similar experience in its nine months results, with growing revenue but sales sapped by mounting costs.

Data from Riyad Capital in early-2018 suggested that the UAE only consumes about half of its own cement production. The rest is exported to the Middle East and North African region, particularly Oman and Egypt, and African countries. The country has 14 integrated cement plants with a production capacity of 31.4Mt/yr and eight grinding plants with a capacity of 10.4Mt/yr. These are owned by a mixture of local companies and multinationals.

The European producers still have a presence through LafargeHolcim’s Lafarge Emirates plant in Fujairah and a grinding plant run by Cemex. Although how long LafargeHolcim will remain seems uncertain given a report by Bloomberg earlier in February 2019 suggesting that the group is seriously looking at exiting the Middle East and Africa. Oman’s Raysut Cement holds a plant too via its Pioneer Cement subsidiary but the majority of the foreign-owned plants are Indian. Their presence has been steadily growing.

Aditya Birla/UltraTech Cement, JK Cement and Shree Cement all run plants in the UAE and JSW Cement said in mid-2018 that it was going to build a 1Mt/yr integrated plant in Fujairah. UltraTech Cement renamed its grinding plant UltraTech Nathdwara Cement in December 2018. This plant was formerly a Binani Cement plant and part of the rancorous bidding war between UltraTech Cement and Dalmia Bharat.

The background to all of this has been a country that is very willing to spend big on infrastructure projects when the need arises. Forbes reckoned, for example, that the UAE had awarded US$20.7bn on infrastructure projects in 2018 in the first nine months of 2018. Impending projects like the Expo 2020 are still generating construction activity and longer ones like Dubai Metro are in progress. However, the country is in a dynamic place geographically between the two-major economic and cement-producing powerhouses of Saudi Arabia and Iran. For the cement industry this explains the prominence of the grinding sector and the growing interest from Indian companies looking to expand overseas. For the new project and acquisition this week it’s looking more like local variation in the market at this stage. In this context though the fourth quarter results from local producers will make interesting reading to see if anything bigger is going on.

Cemex was the first of the big multinational cement producers to release its fourth quarter results this week. Revenue, sales volumes of cement and gross profit were all up in single digits. Earnings growth was less impressive, with operating earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) rising by 1% year-on-year on a like-for-like basis to US$2.56bn in 2018. This was a decrease of 1% in real terms. Cemex blamed this on rising energy costs and on lower earnings from its territories outside of Mexico and the US.

Figure 1: Breakdown of Cemex’s net sales in 2018 by region: Source: Cemex.

As Figure 1 shows, over three quarters of Cemex’s sales come from Mexico, the US and Europe. Elsewhere its presence is smaller but it does have plants in key countries like the Philippines and Egypt. The former, for example, saw its cement sales rise by 7% in 2018 bringing along the rest of the Asia, Middle East and Africa region into volume growth.

Some other non-financial results to consider lead with the good news that 2018 was the first year ever that Cemex has had without any employee fatalities. This probably doesn’t include contractors or third parties, we’ll have to wait for the next sustainability report to find out for sure, but this is undoubtedly a milestone. Another point of interest was the growth of Cemex Go, its online sales platform. In 2018 it was responsible for around 40% of the company’s sales volumes. Around 85% of its recurring clients use it and it has nearly 30,000 customers. The analytics alone from the system and the potential for further tailoring it towards both customer and company objectives sound promising. Lastly, Cemex was also keen to note its alternative fuels substitution rate of 27% in 2018.

In recent years the other metric that the analysts have been watching is Cemex’s debt. It dropped by 8% year-on-year to US$10.4bn in 2018 compared to a high of US$17.5bn in 2013. Its plan is to reach an ‘investment-grade’ balance sheet by 2020.

In this way Cemex has been ahead of the curve of the major European cement multinationals like LafargeHolcim and HeidelbergCement that have taken on ‘indigestible’ acquisitions more recently. Possibly behind all of these companies is CRH, which has steadily been growing in recent years through acquisitions. It made the headlines this week on the corporate side when Swedish so-called ‘activist investor’ Cevian bought what is thought to be around a 3% stake in the Irish company. The financial press thinks it’s after a seat on the board to try and influence CRH to focus on margins rather than its acquisition strategy. CRH’s EBITDA margin was 12% in 2017 compared to 23%, 19% and 19% for LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement and Cemex respectively. This is just one way of comparing these companies. CRH, for example, might be keen to promote how its other metrics like cash generation and return on capital employed perform compare favourably to its competitors.

The point though is that it has taken Cemex over a decade since its acquisition of Rinker to rebuild its finances. All being well, it stands ready to take advantage of whatever the cement market holds in the 2020s.

Trinidad: Trinidad Cement has appointed Guillermo Rojo de Diego as the general manager. He succeeds Rodolfo Martinez, who held the position from mid-2017. Martinez will take up another role with Cemex, the owner of Trinidad Cement.

Dominican Republic: Cemex has appointed José Antonio Cabrera as the president of Cemex Dominicana. He succeeds Alejandro Ramírez, who has been named president of Cemex Colombia, according to the El Nuevo Dia newspaper. The business has operations in the Dominican Republic, Haiti and Puerto Rico.

Cabrera previously served as Vice President of Strategic Planning at Cemex Egypt, as well as Vice President of Strategic Planning for Cemex's Asia, Middle East and Africa (AMEA) region. He first joined Cemex in 2000 and has held positions including Commercial and Operations Director of Cemex Spain and Project Manager of Strategic Planning for Cemex Spain and the Mediterranean region.

Mexico: Cemex has made a number of changes to the organisation of its senior level positions with effect from 1 February 2019.

Juan Romero Torres, currently president of Cemex Mexico, has been appointed Executive Vice President of Global Commercial Development. This new role aims to build on the progress that Cemex says it has achieved in its Customer Centricity strategy, providing it with a formal structure that will allow new opportunities to add value to customers and markets. Ricardo Naya Barba, current president of Cemex Colombia, has been appointed president of Cemex Mexico.

Jaime Gerardo Elizondo Chapa, currently president of Cemex Europe, has been appointed Executive Vice President of Global Supply Chain Development. This new role aims to grow Cemex´s Supply Chain capabilities to gain additional efficiencies in end-to-end operations. Sergio Mauricio Menendez Medina, currently Distribution Channel Vice President for Cemex Mexico, has been appointed president of Cemex Europe.

HeidelbergCement is set to release its third quarter financial results later this week. In the meantime what can the results from the other major cement producers tell us?

Graph 1: Revenue from major cement producers, Q1 -3 2018. Source: Company reports.

The biggest of the big beasts, China National Building Material (CNBM), released its third quarter update last week. As usual for a major Chinese producer it was the expected story of continuing double-digit growth. Operating income up, profit up and little other information besides.

CNBM’s half-year report back in August 2018 had more information, revealing that cement production volume fell by 5% year-on-year to 143Mt in the first half of 2018 from 150Mt in the same period in 2017. This was pinned on ‘flat’ demand, increased pressure on environmental protection and rising costs of fuel and raw materials. As we mentioned at the time the state-owned company is attempting to cope with the aftermath of China’s great construction boom. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) data shows that local cement sales dropped by 8% year-on-year to 158Mt in the first nine months of 2018. CNBM’s cement sales are likely to have dropped also so far in 2018 but continuing industry consolidation and/or the merger with Sinoma may save them. With this in mind note the lack of sales volumes figures from CNBM and Anhui Conch in Graph 2 below.

Graph 2: Cement sales volumes by major cement producers, Q1 -3 2018. Source: Company reports.

Of the other larger Chinese producers, Anhui Conch’s third quarter report was similarly sparse, sticking to the facts (revenue and profit up) and discussing in more detail a recent large-scale sale and purchase agreement with Jiangsu Conch Building Materials with a value of up to around US$230m. China Resources Cement is typically more verbose in its results releases. Its turnover and profits are also up so far in 2018 but it actually explained that cement and clinker prices had risen by 32%.

Outside of China, LafargeHolcim’s results were mixed in a direct year-on-year comparison but more favourable on a like-for-like basis. Net sales and cement sales volumes are growing slowly but recurring earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) fell very slightly. Growth in Europe and North America was countered by issues in Asia Pacific, Latin America and Middle East Africa. Chief executive Jan Jenisch was more optimistic than at the same point in 2017 with no talk of ‘lacking potential’ and more emphasis on ‘positive momentum.’

As for the others, both Cemex and UltraTech Cement are looking good so far. Growth in Mexico and the US has bolstered Cemex’s performance giving, it a 7% year-on-year boost to US$10.9bn in the first nine months of 2018. Cement sales volumes grew more slowly at 3%, although operating EBITDA remained flat. Part of this was down to poorer markets south of Mexico, notably in Colombia. UltraTech Cement is still looking good after its acquisition of Jaiprakash Associates’ plants in 2017 but earnings and profits have started to decline. The Indian market leader has blamed this on mounting energy and logistics costs coupled with local currency depreciation effects.

So, in summary, generally good news from the big producers, although issues are present in certain markets, notably South America. HeidelbergCement has already set the scene for its third quarter results with a warning that its earnings are down due to poor weather in the US and rising energy costs. Sales volumes and revenue are said to be ‘within expectations.’ Its Indian subsidiary, HeidelbergCement India, reported storming figures for its half-year to the end of September 2018 with double-digit growth across sales, sales volumes and earnings. Less reassuringly, its larger Indonesian subsidiary reported falling sales for the first nine months of 2018. All eyes will be on HeidelbergCement later in the week to see how this plays out.

Well, it turns out that the European cement industry wasn’t kidding when it raised the risks of the climate mitigation on the sector. This week three (!) integrated plants have been earmarked for closure.

Cementa in Sweden said that it was considering closing its Degerhamn plant due to increased environmental regulations. Today, local press in Spain is reporting that Cemex España is planning to shut down two of its plants. These are plants in different parts of Europe with different local market dynamics but both are within the European Union (EU). That’s three plants closing out of 219 in the EU, or a loss of around 1% of production capacity.

Last week’s column on the United Nations’ (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on Global Warming raised the way the cement sector is tackling climate change and the existing and impending legislation. President of the German Cement Works Association (VDZ) Christian Knell’s opening words at the VDZ Congress in September 2018 seem prescient. He said, “To be able to realise our efforts in terms of climate protection and at the same time not to lose competitiveness, we need research policy-related support for our investment in breakthrough technologies and the corresponding demonstration projects.” The add-on was that the industry needed to focus on how the development of carbon abatement technologies can meet the 2050 climate goals and, specifically, that suitable boundary conditions would have to be created. The press releases accompanying his speech emphasised that, “on-going trends in European emissions trading and the ‘rapidly increasing’ price of CO₂ were already today leading to considerable costs for cement manufacturers.”

These words are similar to the comments Albert Scheuer, a board member of HeidelbergCement, made at the Innovation in Industrial Carbon Capture Conference early in 2018 about dividing the mounting environmental costs of cement and concrete between producers and society in general. Considering how much cementitious building materials most people use throughout their lives compared to the relative low price of cement, this argument carries some weight. In addition, the sustainability credentials of concrete buildings through longer lifespan and durability through extreme weather events is another argument that industry advocates such as the Portland Cement Association (PCA) in the US have been hawking in recent years.

Cementa, a subsidiary of HeidelbergCement, blamed anticipated tightening of environmental regulations for its decision. Although it said that the plant had made improvements over the years, the expected difficulty (read: cost) to make further improvements was becoming too hard. Shifting production to the company’s other two plants in the region, Slite on Gotland and Brevik in Norway, will reduce CO₂ emissions by 260,000t/yr.

In Spain, the news from Cemex follows a half-year report from Oficemen, the local cement association, that predicted growth for the year but not as fast as previously expected. The problem was that continued declines in the export market, the 13th decline month-by-month in a row, offset the domestic growth. Oficement president Jesús Ortiz also took time to blame rising electricity costs, expected to rise by 20% year-on-year by the end of 2018.

Market issues in Spain aren’t in doubt, but the real question for both Sweden and Spain is whether EU CO₂ legislation right now is causing cement producers to shut plants. The CO₂ emissions allowance price hit a high of Euro22/t in September 2018, the highest price in a decade. Allowances have stayed below Euro10/t since 2011 and the price has more than doubled in 2018. Throw in the mood music of the IPCC and the trend seems irresistible. How many more plants in Europe are at risk to shut next? No doubt the European cement producers have charts marking the viability of their plants against the CO₂ price. This would be a very interesting graph to get our hands on.

The 2nd FutureCem Conference on CO₂ reduction strategies for the cement industry will take place in May 2019 in London, UK