Displaying items by tag: Cemex

UK: Michel Andre has been appointed as the Country President for Cemex UK. He joins the UK subsidiary of the Mexican-based building materials producer after spending seven years as the Country President for Cemex France. Andre has worked for Cemex’s French business for 12 years with roles in strategic planning and its readymix business. Previous to this he worked for Lafarge in the US and France and was employed by Pricewaterhouse Coopers.

He has also served as a board member and then president of the Unicem Association France, the National Union of Quarrying and Building Materials Industries. His three-year term finished in June 2017.

Andre succeeds Jesús Gonzalez in the UK post. Gonzalez has been promoted to the executive team in Monterrey, Mexico as Executive Vice President Sustainability and Operations Development. His role covers health and safety, operations and technology, energy, sourcing, research and development and sustainability.

Dominican Republic: Alejandro Ramirez Cantu has been appointed as the president of Cemex Dominican Republic. Ramirez succeeds Carlos Emilio Gonzalez, who has held the position since 2011, according to the Diario Libre newspaper. Ramirez will also be responsible for the operations of Cemex in Bahamas and Haiti. He has worked for the building materials producer since 2000, managing operations in Thailand, Puerto Rico and Costa Rica.

2017 has started more uncertainly for the US cement industry than 2016 did according to the latest data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Cement shipment data from just two months, January and February 2017, can only present a limited impression of the state of the industry. Yet the key trend to look for in Graph 1 is the growth in Midwestern US states against a decline in the Western ones. Previously in 2016 this region’s shipments sunk below those in the West in December and didn’t overtake them until the spring. This time round they’ve stuck closely and overtaken them already in February 2017.

Graph 1: Portland and blended cement shipments by US Census Bureau region for 2016 to February 2017. Source: USGS.

The Midwest’s cement shipments jumped by 21% year-on-year to 2.2Mt for those first two months. Buzzi Unicem concurred with this picture in the Midwest with its first quarter financial results this week, reporting a boost in deliveries in the region. HeidelbergCement agreed, reporting sales volumes increases in the north of the country and a decrease in the West. In that region the USGS data shows an 8% fall in shipments to 2.2Mt. HeidelbergCement blamed heavy rain and flooding in California and Oregon as the cause of the problems. Another potential reason that the USGS hints at are increasing imports of cement that it says have been rising faster than sales. For example, imports of cement to the US as a whole grew by 23.9% year-on-year to 0.81Mt in February 2017.

Overall though the situation for the larger cement producers has been subdued. Many of them blamed good weather in the first quarter of 2016 giving them a hard quarter to measure against in 2017. For example, LafargeHolcim’s sales volumes of cement fell by 4.5% in North America although it did report sales growth off the back of cement pricing and cost controls. HeidelbergCement may have looked good on paper following its integration of the Italcementi/Essroc assets but its cement volumes only grew by 1% in the period. Cemex too reported a similar scenario with falling sales volumes of 5% but growing sales revenue.

To put this in perspective, as the Portland Cement Association’s (PCA) chief economist Ed Sullivan says in the May 2017 issue of Global Cement Magazine, cement production in the US grew in 2016 and it is expected to continue growing in 2017 and 2018. Just like the start of 2016 (see GCW251) the potential for US construction growth in the year ahead is a quietly confident one but it isn’t assured.

Cemex points out that housing starts rose by 8% in the first quarter of 2017, as did construction spending in the industrial and commercial sector. However, it says that infrastructure spending fell by 9% in February 2017. Indeed this last point is an important one given that one of the major Trump campaign pledges in the 2016 presidential campaign was to build more infrastructure. As commentators in Washington DC including the PCA have asked: where is the Bill? Rightly, the PCA are not letting the lawmakers forget this during ‘Infrastructure week’ as the issue is discussed. The US cement industry needs this.

For further information on the US cement industry take a look at the May 2017 issue of Global Cement Magazine

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 Philippines has been messing up the balance sheets of cement producers so far in 2017. Over the last week Holcim Philippines, CRH and Cemex have each reported lacklustre first quarter results dragged down by poor performance in the country. CRH’s chief executive officer Albert Manifold seemed to receive the worst kicking when analysts in a conference call refused to let it pass that the company’s sales had dropped by 12% year-on-year in Asia. Although to be fair to him the group’s Asian division only represented 2% of global sales at Euro0.5bn…

CRH’s quarterly financial reports tend to be in the form of sparse trading updates. So this lack of detail and CRH’s plans to invest over Euro300m in the market may have prompted Manifold’s grilling. According to the Irish Times he blamed the situation on cheap imports from south-east Asia pulling down the price. He then defended the investment on the grounds that local producers would have an advantage as they increase production capacity due to constant production and ‘guaranteed’ regulation and certification.

CRH isn’t the only organisation that has been burned by the Philippines. Before Christmas this column was praising the local industry for being in a boom. Cement sales had risen by 10.1% year-on-year to 20.1Mt according to CEMAP data in the first nine months of 2016 and the Duterte Infrastructure Plan was starting to target hundreds of billions of US dollars towards infrastructure spending. In the end cement sales rose by 6.6% to 26Mt for the full year in 2016 and this was a solid performance despite being brought down by the fourth quarter.

From the cement producers mentioned above, Cemex reported that its Ordinary Portland Cement sales volumes fell by 9% in the first quarter. It blamed the fall on bad weather and a tough quarter to compare against in 2015. Holcim Philippines said that its net sales fell by 12% to US$176m and it attributed it to lower public infrastructure spending, tighter industry competition and higher production expenses. Eagle Cement meanwhile, the fourth of the country’s major producers, is preparing to float on the local stock market in May 2017 to fund an expansion drive. The poor results of the other three cement producers may dent its proceeds from the initial public offering (IPO).

The words CRH’s Albert Manifold used in his defence were that, “Brand matters over there.” Funnily enough the other big Philippines cement industry news story that has been rumbling away for the last few months is an investigation by the Philippine Competition Commission (PCC) into the conduct of the Cement Manufacturers Association of the Philippines (CEMAP) and some of the leading cement producers. Naturally this includes CRH’s joint venture Republic Cement. The enquiry was prompted in mid-2016 by the accusation of anti-competitive agreements by a former trade official. He also made direct allegations against Ernesto Ordonez, the head of CEMAP. The investigation is on-going and perhaps it will find out exactly how much ‘brand matters’ in the Philippines.

Unsurprisingly the European Commission blocked Duna-Dráva Cement’s (DDC) attempted purchase of Cemex Croatia this week. Merging the country’s biggest cement producer with its largest importer was going to be a challenge for the commission. Whereas in previous transactions the various parties offered business disposals to ease the commission’s concerns, here all they were got was access to a cement terminal in Metković in southern Croatia. And this facility on the Neretva river is currently being leased by Cemex! Clearly this didn’t give the impression of being a long term solution.

Compare this with the merger between Lafarge and Holcim in 2015 where multiple sales were proposed to make sure the deal went through. Or look at the acquisition of Italcementi by HeidelbergCement in 2016 where the parties sold Italcementi’s Belgian subsidiary Compagnie des Ciments Belges to Cementir to make the deal happen. In comparison to these deals the attempt by HeidelbergCement and Schwenk, through their subsidiary DDC, comes across as a calculated gamble designed to test the resolve of the commission. If the commission had somehow passed the proposed acquisition then the companies would have cornered the market. If it turned it down, as it has, then nothing would be lost other than putting together the bid. HeidelbergCement had its mind on bigger things as it bought and then integrated Italcementi.

Commissioner Margrethe Vestager summed up the mood of the commission: “For mergers between direct competitors, we generally have a preference for a clean, structural solution, such as selling a production plant. HeidelbergCement and Schwenk decided not to offer that. Instead they proposed to give a competitor access to a cement terminal in southern Croatia. Essentially, this amounted to giving a competitor access to a storage facility – without existing customers or established access to cement, without brands and without sales or managerial staff.”

Elsewhere, the other big story in the industry news this week was Votorantim’s decision to focus on the lime business in Brazil by adding lime units to some of its existing cement plants. Given the dire state of the local cement and construction industry, initiatives to break the deadlock have been expected. The alternative is plant closures and divestures, such as the ongoing talks by Camargo Corrêa to sell the other big local producer, InterCement. Votorantim plans to build lime units attached to the cement plants at Nobres in Mato Grosso, Xambioa in Tocantins, Primavera in Pará and Idealiza in Goiás. Unfortunately the agricultural areas of the country and ones with cement plants don’t overlay neatly. Cement production is mainly focused in the south-eastern states and Votorantim are targeting the Cerrado, in the centre of the country, for the lime business.

The scale of the project, at US$50m, the scale of the lime business generally and the addition of lime units at cement plants suggest that the pivot to lime can only be a sideline to cement and construction. Given the similarity of the cement and lime production processes the announcement would be much more significant were Votorantim set to convert clinker kilns into lime ones. A notable example of this was at Cement Australia’s Gladstone plant in Queensland, Australia. Here a mothballed FCB-Ciment clinker kiln was converted into a lime kiln in the early 2000s. At the time the cost of the conversion project was valued at just under US$20m. If Votorantim was seriously thinking of doing this at a few of their underperforming cement plants then one would expect the bill to be higher than US$50m. However, it’s early days yet.

Mexico: Mauricio Doehmer has been appointed as the president of the National Chamber of Cement. He is Cemex’s corporate affairs and business risk management executive vice-president, according to the El Financiero newspaper. He succeeds Billy Alvarez, an executive with Cementos Cruz Azul.

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.

With president-elect Trump due to take office this week we wonder what this means for the cement industry in Mexico. In 2016 this column looked a couple of times at the implications of Trump upon the US cement industry. First, we looked at who might benefit if he builds his wall along the Mexican border and then we wondered what his policies might mean for the US industry. To answer the latter first, the main issues for the US industry are infrastructure, changes to the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) and the repercussions if Trumps serious about a trade war with China. So long as a trade war doesn’t happen then Trump is probably good news for the US cement industry. As for Mexico, the joke has been that Trump will be good for the construction business ever since market analysts Bernstein’s passed a note around in the summer of 2016 about that wall.

Graph 1: Breakdown of Mexican cement industry by production capacity. Source: Global Cement Directory 2017.

The makeup of the domestic Mexican cement industry hasn’t changed too much in the last decade, even with the merger between Lafarge and Holcim, preserving the same market share in production capacity between the companies. Most of the producers have reported growth in 2016. Cemex reported that its cement sales volumes rose by 3% for the first nine months of 2016 and by 10% in the third quarter of that year. Overall though, its net sales fell slightly to US$2.16bn in the first nine months, alongside a fall in ready-mix concrete sales volumes. Cemex, crucially, also seems to have taken charge of its debts in 2016, saying that it was on track to meet its targets and that it had announced nearly US$2bn worth of divestments in that year. Currently the company is trying to buy out Trinidad Cement in the Caribbean, which may be a sign that it has turned a corner.

Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua’s (GCC) cement sales volumes rose in the first three quarters of 2016, in its case by 4%. Its overall net sales in Mexico rose by 4.2% in Mexican Pesos for the same period but fell when calculated in US Dollars due to currency variations. GCC attributed its sales growth to better pricing environment and increased cement volumes, mainly for projects in the commercial and industrial sectors that compensated for a decline in the public sector, following the culmination of two major urban paving and highway construction projects in 2015. At the smaller end of the market, Elementia reported that its cement sales skyrocketed by 30% to US$104m in the first nine months of the year aided by higher prices and volumes.

The major Mexican cement producers all have a presence in the US with the exception of Cruz Azul. Cemex has held assets north of the border for years, Cemento Portland Moctezuma has links to Buzzi Unicem, GCC bought US assets from Cemex in 2016 and Elementia completed its purchase of Giant Cement also in 2016. These companies have clinker in their kilns in plants on US soil manned by US citizens. This represents investment in local industry and it is exactly the kind of thing that appeals to the rhetoric of Trump’s approach so far. If the new president builds his wall then Mexican producers will probably be producing much of the cement that builds it. Even the Mexican Peso’s slow decline since 2014 could help the local cement industry, as it will cut the cost of moving exports and materials north of the border. Indeed, Enrique Escalante, the chief executive officer of GCC said in late 2016 that his company was ‘ready to build’ Trump’s wall.

However, the sheer uncertainty factor of an incoming president with as little experience of public office as Donald Trump must be giving chief executives pause for thought. After all, Trump's tweets before he has assumed office have forced car manufacturers to change policy. If he manages to disrupt the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in order to protect US jobs then the repercussions for the Mexican economy will be profound. It sends nearly three quarters of its exports to the US. Local cement producers would surely suffer in the resulting economic disruption.

So, currency devaluations aside, Mexican producers are making money from their cement operations at home and they are increasingly hedging their bets by operating or buying units in the US. Some, like GCC, are even being ebullient about the benefits that might come their way. It may be a bumpy ride but the Mexican industry is ready. However, it may wish to avoid appearing in any of Donald Trump’s tweets anytime soon.

Construction firm DMCI Holdings announced plans this week to enter the Philippine cement market. The company intends to build one cement plant on Semirara and three cement grinding plants elsewhere – at Batangas, Iloilo and Zamboanga – to give it a national presence. DMCI’s managing director Victor Limlingan admitted to local press that his company was taking a gamble on spending US$368m in this way.

It has staked its money on the Duterte Infrastructure Plan, a scheme from the new administration that was elected in June 2016 to target US$165bn (!) towards infrastructure spending until the early 2020s. Even if a portion of this money makes it from political hyperbole to the diggers then it is likely to mean a sustained construction boom for an economy that is already growing at around 6%/yr. DCMI’s excitement was almost palpable in mid-November 2016 when it put out a press release calling for potential partners to help it benefit from the rush when it comes. Although the company did add that all the discussions were at the exploratory stage at this time because it was still awaiting bidding documents.

DMCI’s project joins six plants in various stages of planning and construction from San Miguel, Northern Cement, Eagle Cement and LafargeHolcim. In addition four existing plants are carrying out upgrades to increase their production capacity. Clearly, things are looking up for the local cement industry. DMCI follows San Miguel which announced that it was going to spend US$1bn on building five cement plants around the country in mid-2015.

In line with this kind of investment the Cement Manufacturers Association of the Philippines (CEMAP) said that cement sales had risen by 10.1% year-on-year to 20.1Mt in the first three quarters of 2016. This follows annual sales growth of 8.7% to 21.3Mt in 2014 and of 14.3% to 24Mt in 2015. CEMAP’s data for 2015 also shows that local demand overtook the country’s kiln capacity in 2014. Subsequently imports peaked to 314,000t in 2014, the highest level since 2002.

The country’s second largest producer Republic Cement, a joint venture between CRH and Aboitiz, reported sales growth similar to CEMAP’s one for the first three months of the year. LafargeHolcim, the largest producer, didn’t reveal any figures in its third quarter report but it marked the Philippines as one of its key contributors in the quarter. By contrast, Cemex noted lower growth in its third quarter report at 4% for the nine months to September 2016. It also said that the government transition following the election had slowed cement consumption, especially from infrastructure projects.

The Philippine cement industry is in the enviable position of being in a boom. The kind of problems it has to cope with includes provincial cement shortages, lobbying to increase usage of blended cements, scrutiny of prices by the government and a rise in technical smuggling. Once the new plants and upgrades start becoming operational the true nature of the market should become more apparent. At present it looks likely that DCMI gamble may turn out to be a wise one. The next question will be how many more companies want a piece of the piece too?