Displaying items by tag: UltraTech Cement

UltraTech Cement’s deal to buy the cement business of Century Textiles & Industries could see it become the world’s third largest cement producer by production capacity outside of China.

It announced this week that it had entered into an acquisition agreement to buy the cement subsidiary of BK Birla Group for US$1.26bn. If the deal completes then it will gain three integrated plants in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra respectively with a combined production capacity of 11.4Mt/yr and a 1Mt/yr grinding plant in West Bengal. At this point UltraTech Cement will increase its production capacity to 106Mt/yr seeing it become the third largest cement producer in the world in Global Cement’s Top 100 Report.

This latest deal is subject to the usual regulatory approval from competition bodies and the like. Bustling past this step seems far from clear at this stage given that UltraTech Cement owns cement plants already in each of the four states the proposed purchases are in. It has described the purchase as giving it, …”the opportunity for further strengthening its presence in the highly fragmented, competitive and fast growing East and Central markets and extending its footprint in the Western and Southern markets.” Synergy savings from procurement and logistics are expected to follow with further benefits to be gained from the company’s distribution network. Local and national competitors may not see it the same way and the fallout from a price war could be damaging for smaller producers.

As covered previously, UltraTech Cement seems hell bent on winning its on-going fight against Dalmia Bharat to buy Binani Cement. Rightly or wrongly UltraTech Cement tried to muscle its way into buying Binani by making a bid directly to its owners after it lost an auction for it. Legal wrangling has followed as the insolvency process for Binani Cement has clashed against the auction process of the administrator. At the time of writing it is still far from clear which company will win.

Comparing the prices of the two latest acquisition targets by UltraTech Cement may offer some insight of its motivations. The Binani Cement assets roll in at just over US$125/t of production capacity. Although, as noted below, some of this is located outside of India. The Century Textiles & Industries assets are being purchased for a little over US$100/t. This is interesting as it is lower that the Binani cost, although the close links between BK Birla Group and UltraTech Cement’s owner Aditya Birla may help to explain this.

UltraTech Cement’s milestone as it surpasses the 100Mt/yr capacity level will mark a continuing change in the world’s cement industry as it moves away from Europe and North America to developing economies. As ever the classification is a bit of a fudge given that Global Cement’s top producers list excludes Chinese producers. Partly this arises from the difficulty obtaining reliable data on the Chinese industry. Partly this comes from top producer’s list looking at multinational companies over (extremely) large national ones. Due to this UltraTech Cement remains a regional player. Or it will at least until it (or if it) manages to buy Binani Cement. Some of the assets included in that sale include plants in both the UAE and China. At this point UltraTech Cement’s claim to be the third biggest cement producer in the world will be secure.

Persistence has paid off for UltraTech Cement this week. Although the deal is not complete, all the signs are pointing towards India’s largest cement producer buying Binani Cement despite losing an auction for it last month. Here’s a recap of what has happened so far.

In July 2017 the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Kolkata, a semi-judicial body that rules on issues relating to companies, started insolvency proceedings for Binani Cement. It followed a plea by one of the cement company’s creditors, the Bank of Baroda, that had an outstanding claim of around US$15m. The Kolkata bench of the NCLT rejected Binani Cement’s argument that the debt was tiny compared to the assets of its parent company Binani Industries of US$2.15bn. It then appointed an administrator, or resolution professional, called Vijaykumar Iyer, a partner at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India. More on him later on.

The subsequent auction of Binani Cement raised lots of interest both internationally and locally due to its production base. The company operates a 4.9Mt/yr plant at Binanigram in Rajasthan with two kilns and four mills. It also runs a 1.4Mt/yr cement grinding plant at Sirohi in the same state. Unusually though for an Indian producer it also runs a 2Mt/yr grinding plant at Jebel Ali, Dubai in the UAE and a 0.5Mt/yr integrated plant, Shandong Cement, in China.

Its products domestically in India include 43 and 53 grades Ordinary Portland Cement and Portland Pozzolana Cement, with the Bollywood film star Amitabh Bachchan as its brand ambassador. On that last point the Indian Supreme Court chastised Binani Cement in 2014 for not paying sales tax in Rajasthan whilst being able to hire Bachchan! However, given the ferocity of the struggle to buy Binani Cement maybe all that marketing of the brand paid off, giving the producer a much higher profile than it might otherwise have had.

Anyway, lots of companies showed interest in Binani Cement in the first round of bidding in late 2017. CRH, LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement, India Cement, Orient Cement, Ramco Cement, Shree Cement, UltraTech Cement and Piramal Group were all linked to the auction. Eventually UltraTech Cement, JSW Cement, Ramco Cement, HeidelbergCement India, Dalmia Bharat and a pair of Indian investors all submitted bids and JSW Cement emerged as the winner with a bid of US$919m. However the emergence of an additional liability of around US$250m scuppered that auction when it turned out that Binani Cement had offered a corporate guarantee for the acquisition of a fibreglass asset in Europe known as 3B in 2012 by Binani Industries. By February 2018 the next auction was in progress and this time Dalmia Bharat Cement and UltraTech Cement led the race. Dalmia Bharat won the second auction with a bid of around US$1.03bn made in a consortium with Bain Capital’s India Resurgent Fund and Piramal Enterprises.

At this point the situation might have conceivably slowed down. Instead, UltraTech Cement kept on fighting and queried the entire bidding process. It then made a direct offer of US$1.11bn to Binani Cement in the form of a so-called ‘comfort letter’ that Binani Industries used to stop the insolvency process. At the same time it received approval from the Competition Commission of India in its bid for Binani Cement, the previous absence of which was one of the reasons its bid against Dalmia Bharat was rejected.

Indian company law now faced a dilemma over how a bankruptcy works given that the NCLT was meant to be in charge. A way out was found though when the NCLT in Kolkata and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal both allowed the bidders to settle the dispute ‘amicably.’ To add further confusion the administrator Vijaykumar Iyer also alleged right in the middle of the final tussle between Dalmia Bharat and UltraTech Cement that fraudulent transactions had been made by Binani Cement! Whether this has any further implications remains to be seen.

At this stage nobody is likely to declare UltraTech Cement the winner of Binani Cement until it actually picks up the keys to the cement plants. Perhaps not even then in case of any lingering legal issues! UltraTech Cement clearly views Rajasthan as a growth area given the tenacity with which it has gone after Binani Cement. It operates two integrated plants in the state and is building two more of its own. After its long journey in buying plants from Jaiprakash Associates in 2017, UltraTech Cement is starting to look like the cement producer that simply won’t take no for an answer.

HeidelbergCement’s acquisition of Italcementi really sticks out in a comparison of the major multinational cement producers in 2017. Both its sales revenue and cement sales volumes jumped up by more than 10% year-on-year from 2016 to 2017. It still puts HeidelbergCement behind LafargeHolcim and CRH in revenue terms but the gap is shortening. Although, as we reported at the time of its preliminary results in late February 2018, on a like-for-like basis its sales and volumes only rose by 2.1% and 1.1% respectively.

Graph 1: Sales revenue from multinational cement producers in 2016 and 2017 (Euro billions). Source: Company financial reports.

The European markets may be back on their feet but serious growth came from mergers and acquisitions. Along the same lines, India’s UltraTech Cement is set to reap the reward of its US$2.5bn acquisition of six integrated cement plants and five grinding plants from Jaiprakash Associates in mid-2017. Although as can be seen in graphs 1 and 2 it had been doing fairly well even before this.

Graph 2: Cement sales volumes from multinational cement producers in 2016 and 2017 (Mt). Source: Company financial reports.

We’ve included Ireland’s CRH this year to present the scale of the company. When it says that it is the world’s biggest building materials company, it means it! CRH doesn’t publish its cement sales volumes, which makes it hard to compare it to other cement producers. In part this may be due to the company’s regional-focused structure and its approach to the construction industry. In Global Cement Magazine’s Top 100 Report 2017 – 2018 feature, CRH was placed as the seventh largest cement producer by installed capacity with 50.5Mt/yr. The major story with CRH in recent years has been its steady stream of acquisitions, notably Ash Grove Cement in the US in 2017.

LafargeHolcim may remain the biggest cement producer in the world outside of China but it made an income loss of Euro1.46bn in 2017. At face value its cement sales volumes fell by 10.2% to 210Mt in 2017 from 233Mt in 2016 but this was mainly due to divestments in China, Vietnam and Chile. On a like-for-for-like basis its volumes rose by 3.3%. To this kind of mood music the emphasis on the release of its 2017 results this week was the announcement of a five-year plan to refocus the company. However, reports of overcapacity in Algeria that also emerged this week suggest the group may have its work cut out.

Cemex described 2017 as a ‘challenging year’ as its operating earnings fell due to a lower contribution from the US and South America despite growth in Mexico and Europe. Hurricanes in Florida had a negative impact in the US and the Colombian market suffered from falling production in 2017. UltraTech Cement uses a different financial year to the other companies detailed here, which makes comparisons a little harder. However, its profit after tax fell in the third quarter that ended on 31 December 2017 due to rising costs of petcoke and coal. Undeterred though, its expansion drive continues this week with its continued efforts to try and win the bid for Binani Cement. Vicat, meanwhile, reported falling earnings in part due to the poor market in Egypt. Yet overall its sales and volumes rose in 2017 aided by recovery in France. Finally, Buzzi Unicem rode out the Italian market with its acquisition of Zillo Group delivering a rise in sales and cement volumes.

Wider trends are hard to call given the differing geographical spreads of these cement producers. Europe has been recovering from a decade of stagnation and Asian markets are no longer reliable. South America is mixed with places like Brazil, and now Colombia, underperforming. Yet Argentina is proving one of the fastest growing construction markets at the moment with local plants unable to meet demand. Africa remains profitable and promising as ever but divided between the north and the Sub-Saharan region.

Once the effects from mergers and acquisition activity by the larger cement producers start to fade then the actual situation may become clearer. In the meantime, the effects of the recent cold snap in Europe on the first quarter results for 2018 could be pretty varied. The Financial Times newspaper, for example, quoted one pundit from the Construction Products Association who estimated the industry lost 1% of its annual output to the bad weather in the UK. This may not be great news for any company relying on the European market.

To mark the end of the calendar year we’re going to round up some of the major news stories from the cement industry in 2017. Like last year this piece also complements the corresponding article ‘The global cement industry in 2017’ in the December 2017 issue of Global Cement Magazine. Remember, this is just one view of the year's events. If you think we've missed anything important let us know via LinkedIn, Twitter or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Recovery in Europe
2017 was the year that the European cement industry finally had something to shout about after a lost decade since the financial crash of 2007. The good news was led by a revival in cement consumption in 2016 that looks set to have continued in 2017. Prospects in Germany and Spain feel similar and a series of mergers and acquisitions have taken place in Italy suggesting that investors believe that the market is about to recover there too. Sure, Brexit is looming but as contacts have told Global Cement staff throughout the year, if the British want to damage their economy, that’s their business.

Renewal and recrimination at LafargeHolcim
Lafarge’s conduct in Syria during the civil war has cost its successor company LafargeHolcim dear, with the loss of its chief executive officer (CEO) Eric Olsen and potential reputational damage if the on-going investigation in Paris finds fault. At the time of writing Olsen, former Lafarge CEO Bruno Lafont and the former deputy managing director for operations Christian Herraul are all being questioned by the inquiry into the affair as it attempts to determine who knew what and when. LafargeHolcim has drawn a line under the debacle by appointing outsider Jan Jenisch as its new CEO in mid-2017. He has made changes to the group’s management structure that were announced this week but has he done enough? If anything truly ‘explosive’ emerges from the investigation, the question for anyone across the world buying LafargeHolcim’s products may be whether or not they want to finance extremism through their purchase.

US doesn’t build wall but does okay anyway
The US Portland Cement Association (PCA) may keep downgrading its forecasts of cement consumption growth but the local industry is doing fairly well anyway. All sorts of cement producers with a presence in the US have benefited from the market, despite extreme weather events like Hurricane Irma. President Donald Trump may not have delivered on his infrastructure development promises or built his fabled wall yet but his recently-approved tax reforms are likely to benefit the profits of cement producers. The decision by Ireland’s CRH to buy Ash Grove Cement in September 2017 may remove the largest domestically-owned producer from US hands but it shows confidence in the market and heralds the continued creeping growth of the building materials company into an international empire.

South America shows promise… just don’t mention Brazil
Countries like Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela may not be performing to expectations but other countries south of the Darian Gap, have been growing their respective cement industries. The leader here is Argentina that is riding a full-scale construction boom with capital investment chasing it from the producers. Bolivia is following a decade of growth although this may be starting to slow somewhat. Chile appears to be realigning itself to take in more exports. And finally, Brazil may also be starting to return to growth too. Although cement sales were continuing to fall year-on-year in the first nine months of 2017 the rate has been slowing. Local producer Votorantim also reported improved market conditions at home.

India stares into the demand gap
UltraTech Cement finally managed to buy six cement plants and five grinding plants from Jaiprakash Associates for US$2.5bn in 2017. The acquisition marked the end of the long-running deal between the companies and what may be a new phase in further integration in the Indian industry. In September 2017 the Cement Manufacturers Association (CMA) complained that the sector had 100Mt/yr of excess production capacity out of a total 425Mt/yr. The government’s demonetisation policy sank cement production growth in late 2016 and production has struggled to improve since then. Some estimates expect growth to return in around 2020 as the demand gap shrivels. Further merger and acquisition activity can only help until then, although the current government flip-flopping over a petcoke ban and import duties may get in the way.

China restructures with an eye on overseas market
As discussed last week the mind-bogglingly massive merger between China National Building Material (CNBM) and China National Materials (Sinoma) is proceeding with the press equivalent of radio silence. If one trusts the company figures then the largest cement producer in the world will get even bigger following completion. Once the big Chinese producers start building lots of overseas plants then the implications of combining a major producer with a major plant builder may become clear outside of China. Alongside this the buzzword on the Chinese cement company balance sheets this year have been a major rollout of co-processing at plants and a policy of ‘peak shifting’ or simply shutting off production at selected plants in the winter months. Somehow despite all of this the official figures suggest that cement production is still growing in China.

The African mega deal that wasn’t
The prospective bidding war for South Africa’s PPC has turned out to be a bust. A low offer was made in September 2017 by a Canadian investment firm with the aim of merging PPC with local rival AfriSam. Vague expressions of interest from the usual suspects followed over the following months before everything fizzled out. What the dickens was going on? A difference of opinion between the board and shareholders? A poor market in South Africa giving everyone the jitters? If any readers know, please get in touch. PPC’s poor showing at home mirrors Dangote Cement’s travails. Both companies have suffered domestically whilst going full tilt elsewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Indonesia about to pick up?
And finally, a report from Fitch Ratings this week suggests that growth in Indonesia is set to pick up once again. The market dragged down HeidelbergCement’s mid-year financial results as cement consumption dropped in the same period. Like India, Indonesia faces a consumption-capacity mismatch. However, with annual consumption poised to grow at over 6%, the time to close that gap will narrow. Some good news to end the year with.

Global Cement Weekly will return on 3 January 2018. In the meantime Merry Christmas and a have Happy New Year!

The third quarter financial results for HeidelbergCement are out today. They aren’t perfect but the company is hanging in there following its acquisition of Italcementi in late 2016. As one would expect both cement sales volumes and sales revenue are up on a double-digit basis. After all, HeidelbergCement has absorbed a major competitor, including assets, staff, cement plants and all. Its volumes and revenue have improved, more importantly though, on a like-for-like basis, even if it is modest. With the US and Europe driving sales the cement producer has time to make its promised synergies following the Italian acquisition and hopefully wait out recovery in places like Indonesia and Egypt.

Graph 1: Cement sales volumes for selected multinational cement producers during the first nine months of 2017. Source: Company financial reports.

That growth on a like-for-like basis is crucial compared to HeidelbergCement’s big rival, the world’s biggest cement producer, LafargeHolcim. As Graph 1 shows sales volumes data for the major multinational cement producers shows quite a varied picture. LafargeHolcim’s sales volumes have fallen by 12% year-on-year to 156Mt but the company has also been reducing its production capacity. Despite this, a rough calculation of its production utilisation rate suggests that it is selling less cement proportionally, although the company’s like-for-like figures disagree, positing a rise of 1.8%. Cemex’s sales volumes declined slightly to 51.3Mt. The larger regional companies show interesting trends. UltraTech Cement has managed to increase its sales volumes by 5% to 40.4Mt overcoming a poor third quarter in 2016. What to watch here will be whether this will be enough to overcome the effects of demonetisation that rocked India’s economy in late 2016.

Graph 2: Sales revenue for selected multinational cement producers during the first nine months of 2017. Source: Company financial reports.

The stronger regional positions of those last two companies really hits home when sales revenue is examined. As can be seen in Graph 2 both UltraTech Cement and Dangote Cement are growing their sales revenue, the latter despite dropping sales volumes. UltraTech Cement is suffering from falling profits due to rising fuel costs and it may yet suffer from ‘corporate indigestion’ as it digests its acquisition of 21.2Mt/yr cement production capacity from Jaiprakash Associates that took place in June 2017. Dangote Cement seems to have increased its earnings and profits despite problems at home in Nigeria by improving its fuel mix. Yet, flirtations with South Africa’s PPC aside, its expansion plans remain in a holding position. Dangote Cement presents another fascinating situation. Its overall sales volumes have fallen but this reflects a failing market at home in Nigeria and doesn’t show the company’s booming sales in the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Results from CRH and the Brazilian companies Votorantim and InterCement will further flesh out the situation when they are released. Yet, the difference between worldwide producers and regional producers seems to be clear. The likes of LafargeHolcim and Cemex with a global presence are generally battling stagnation in the cement markets overall with a couple of key markets holding them back. Meanwhile, larger regional producers in the right locations are growing. However, the absence of the Brazilian producers is critical here as their experience of the floundering market in Brazil is very different to that of, say, UltraTech Cement’s in India. Looking ahead, the next quarter will be particularly interesting to see how demonetisation skewed UltraTech Cement’s performance, to start to see the first results from HeidelbergCement a year after its purchase of Italcementi and how well LafargeHolcim’s new chief is doing.

It’s been a pessimistic month for the Indian cement industry with Ministry of Commerce & Industry data showing that cement production has fallen year-on-year every month since December 2016. This was followed by the Cement Manufacturers Association (CMA) saying that the industry was sitting on 100Mt/yr of excess production capacity. Now, the credit ratings agency ICRA has followed the data and downgraded its forecast for cement demand growth to not more than 4% for the 2017 - 2018 financial year.

Graph 1: Annual cement production in India. Source: Ministry of Commerce & Industry.

Graph 2: Monthly cement production growth rate year-on-year in India: Source: Ministry of Commerce & Industry.

Graph 1 shows a production peak in the 2015 - 2016 financial year before falling monthly production broke the trend in the 2016 - 2017 period. Graph 2 pinpoints the month it started to go wrong, November 2016, when the government introduced its demonetisation policy. Production growth went negative the following month in December 2017 and it hasn’t managed to right itself since then and grow. It’s convenient to blame the government for the slump in production but it troughed in February 2017 before taking a lower level of decline since then.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) annual report in August 2017 suggests that the policy failed in its principal purpose of reducing the kind of corruption that a cash heavy economy can hide such as tax avoidance. People reportedly managed to find ways to bypass the bank deposit limit and may have successfully laundered large amounts of cash without being caught. However, as commentators like the Financial Times have pointed out, the longer term implications of forcing the economy towards digital payments and increasing the tax base could yet be beneficial overall.

Graph 3: Cement production capacity utilisation rates in India. Source: UltraTech Cement.

Moving on, the CMA has blamed production overcapacity for the current mess and Graph 3 shows the problem starkly. If anything the CMA appears to have downplayed the over capacity crisis facing India, as UltraTech Cement’s figures (using data from the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) show an overcapacity of 155Mt in the 2016 – 2017 year and this will grow to a forecast 157Mt in the next financial year, even though the utilisation rate is expected to rise slightly. UltraTech Cement’s estimates don’t see the utilisation rate topping 70% until the 2020 – 2021 financial year. Analysts quoted in the Mint business newspaper concur, although they reckoned it would the rate would bounce sooner, in 2019 - 2020. Last month when the CMA moaned about the industry's excess capacity it pinned its hopes on infrastructure schemes like the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train. This prompted an official at JK Cements to say that he didn't think that one train line was going to make much of a difference.

This is one reason why ICRA’s and the other credit agencies’ growth rate forecasts for cement demand are important, because they indicate how fast India might be able to close the gap between production capcity and demand. Unfortunately demonetisation scuppered ICRA’s growth prediciton for 2016 – 2017. It forecast a rate of 6% but it actually fell by 1.2%! So downgrading its forecast for 2017 – 2018, with fears of weather and the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in the second half of the year, is ominious. Major cement producers such as Ultratech Cement and Ambuja Cement have based their road to recovery in their latest investor presentations on a 6% growth rate or higher. Pitch it lower and the gap doesn’t close. Here’s hoping for a brisk second half.

Cement sales volumes are down at the larger multinational cement producers so far in 2017. As the first half-year results emerge, a picture seems to be appearing of sluggish growth at best for the major internationals. Reduced working days and poor weather have been blamed for the underwhelming performance.

Graph 1: Cement sales volumes for selected multinational cement producers during the first half of 2017. Source: Company financial reports.

True, LafargeHolcim’s sales rose by 0.4% year-on-year on a like-for-like basis, probably due to the assets the group has been sloughing off since the merger, but this is hardly the dynamic growth shareholders may have hoped for. Meanwhile, HeidelbergCement, following its acquisition of Italcementi in late 2016, has only been able to increase its cement and clinker sales by 1% for the first half of 2017 once consolidation effects were excluded. Here the problem appears to be reduced sales in both the US and Indonesia at the same time. This then leaves Cemex with a 2% drop in sales volumes to 33.9Mt with a big drop in the US despite a promising construction market otherwise. It blamed the decline on a high comparison base in 2016 and the weather.

The larger regional players examined here appear to have fared better. Both UltraTech Cement in India and Dangote in sub-Saharan Africa reported flat or falling sales volumes. However, delve a little deeper and there’s more going on. UltraTech didn’t offer any reason for the decline although it was likely focused on its acquisition of assets from Jaiprakash Associates and the knock-on from the demonetisation process last year. That purchase increased its cement production capacity by nearly 40% to 91.4Mt/yr from 66.3Mt/yr and it seems keen, to investors at least, that it will be able to rocket up the capacity utilisation rate at the new plants.

Dangote meanwhile has taken a blow from the poor economic situation in Nigeria, where it still produces most of its cement. Here, sales fell by 21.8% to 6.86Mt from 8.77Mt, causing its overall sales to fall by 11.3% to 11.5Mt. Almost incredibly though, as Graph 2 shows, Dangote upped its sales revenue by a whopping 41.2% to US$1.13bn off the back of improved efficiencies and a much better fuel mix in Nigeria. The turnaround is impressive considering the pressure the company faced in 2016. Today’s news that the firm has sold a 2.3% stake to foreign investors adds to the impression of a company on the move.

Graph 2: Sales revenue for selected multinational cement producers during the first half of 2017. Source: Company financial reports.

Looking at overall sales revenue shows a happier picture for most of the producers detailed here, with the exception of HeidelbergCement. Although Graph 2 shows declines for LafargeHolcim and Cemex on a like-for-like basis, at least growth is occurring. HeidelbergCement though has reported static revenue on an adjusted basis for the period. This suggests that the producer has hit problems just as it is starting to integrate the Italcementi assets into its portfolio. In theory the geographic spread of its new production units should shield it from lowered growth elsewhere but if this doesn’t happen it may be in for a rougher ride than LafargeHolcim following its merger.

In summary, being a large-scale multinational cement producer doesn’t quite seem to be offering the balanced growth one might expect so far in 2017. Cement sales volumes are slipping and revenue is also down on a direct comparison basis. It’s barely a case for comparison but smaller regionally based producers like UltraTech Cement and Dangote, in the right locations, seem to be capitalising on their positions. We’ll see how the big Brazilian producers Votorantim and InterCement, Buzzi Unicem and CRH fit this trend when they release their financial results over the next few weeks.

Congratulations are due to India’s UltraTech Cement this week for finally completing its US$2.5bn asset purchase from Jaiprakash Associates. The deal has been around in some form or another since at least 2014 when UltraTech arranged to buy two cement plants in Madhya Pradesh for around US$750m. That deal, publicly at least, became a victim of the 2015 amendment to India’s Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) Act. The Bombay High Court eventually rejected it in early 2016 after a period of delays. However, the deal bounced back in a much larger form around the same time and since then everything has gone relatively smoothly.

As chairman Kumar Mangalam Birla put it in his letter to shareholders in the company’s 2016 – 2017 annual report the, “move is essentially for geographic market expansion.” He then went on to mention all the usual keywords like ‘synergy’ and ‘economies of scale’ that you expect from an acquisition. Quite rightly he finished with, “It is with great pride that I record, that UltraTech is the largest cement player in India and the fifth largest on the world stage.” On that last point he meant outside of China but UltraTech does have a small number of assets outside of India, notably in the UAE, Bahrain, Oman and Bangladesh, hinting at an international future for the cement producer.

Map 1: UltraTech Cement’s plants in India. Source: UltraTech Cement Corporate Dossier, January 2017.

To give a scale of the deal, UltraTech has increased its number of integrated cement plants in India to 18 from 12 and its cement grinding plants to 21 from 16. Its overall cement production capacity will increase by nearly 40% to 91.4Mt/yr from 66.3Mt/yr. The new assets are in Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh. The main regions that will benefit are the North, Central and South zones. In particular the Central Zone will see its capacity jump to 21.1Mt/yr from 6.2Mt/yr. This area also includes a new 3.5Mt/yr plant at Dhar in Madhya Pradesh that is scheduled for commercial production in late 2019.

The completion of the Jaiprakash Associates deal was followed by the introduction at the start of July 2017 of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), a rationalisation of some of the country’s central and state taxes. UltraTech promptly said it had reduced its product prices by 2 – 3% in light of tax reductions under the new regime. Some producers were warning of a rise in cement prices in the run-up to the introduction of the GST and the Cement Manufactures’ Association said that the new tax rate was insufficient. However, UltraTech said that the new tax rate of 28% was better than 30 – 31% previously. Other Indian producers also reduced their prices this week following the introduction of the GST.

UltraTech’s expansion and the start of the new tax scheme auger well for the Indian cement industry in 2017. Demonetisation knocked cement production at the start of the year and it may have lowered UltraTech’s capacity utilisation rate as well as reducing domestic sales by cutting housing demand. However, sector rationalisation and a simpler tax approach should help to remedy this. Not all government interaction has been helpful to the cement industry in recent years as the MMDR amendment and demonetisation show but the signs are promising.
Roll on the next set of financial reports.

Today HeidelbergCement publishes its financial results for the first quarter of 2017, giving us an idea of how the year is shaping out for the major cement producers outside of China. Looking at graphs 1 and 2 below of cement production volumes and sales revenue gives the initial impression of a reversal of fortunes for the two leading multinational companies. LafargeHolcim’s production and sales are declining as HeidelbergCement races to catch up, boosted by its acquisition of Italcementi in 2016.

This interpretation would be misleading, however, given that LafargeHolcim has been steadily whittling down its assets to become more profitable and because HeidelbergCement has just taken on a raft of production units. The real figures to look at might be the like-for-like changes with adjustments made for currency, consolidation effects and suchlike. Under these conditions each of the three leading cement producers, with the addition of Cemex, have reported stagnant cement sales in the period. Yet the surprise comes from an analogous look at sales. LafargeHocim and Cemex both reported sales revenue increases of 5 – 6% on a like-for-like basis, whilst HeidelbergCement reported no change. This is further backed up by operating earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) figures that rose significantly on a like-for-like basis for LafargeHolcim at 8.8%, more modestly at 2% for Cemex but fell by 3% for HeidelbergCement.

Graph 1: Cement sales volumes at selected multinational producers in Q1 2016 and Q1 2017. Sources: company reports.

Graph 2: Sales revenue at selected multinational producers in Q1 2016 and Q1 2017. Sources: company reports.

The tragedy of the picture above appears to be that Eric Olsen, the chief executive officer of LafargeHolcim, has started to turn the company around following the merger between Lafarge and Holcim in 2015, just as he is leaving the company. This week Olsen denied that his departure was related to the Syria scandal but that it was related to ‘tensions’ at the group. The lesson that HeidlebergCement can take from this is that enlarging a building materials company in a supressed global market requires decisive action to maintain profitability. Certainly, if it doesn’t go HeidelbergCement’s way in future months and years then the stability of its management and major shareholders may become apparent. Although it doesn’t mention internal matters, HeidelbergCement does flag up higher geopolitical and macroeconomic risks in its outlook for 2017 as well as a ‘shift of political measures towards protectionism.’ That last one is potentially bad news for a multinational cement producer looking to move excess clinker around as it downsizes towards profitability.

Of the rest of the producers included in the graphs above Dangote Cement is worth some attention. The production and sales figures show a company evolving from a national player into an international one. Challenged by economic problems and a market contraction at home in Nigeria the company is exploding internationally in sub-Saharan Africa. Roughly, it sold a third of its cement outside of Nigeria in the period but only made a quarter of its revenue outside of its home turf. This has interesting implications for the international future of the company. However, it will be a big moment for the firm once it finally builds a plant in Nepal outside of Africa.

Italy’s Buzzi Unicem and the Brazilian operators Votorantim and InterCement are due to release their first quarter results in the coming weeks which will flesh out the international picture. Already there are lots of fascinating regional trends emerging that require discussion, such as the Philippines that we looked at last week and a ‘back to business’ feeling in China. Next week in the run up the IEEE/PCA Cement Industry Technical Conference in Calgary, Canada we’ll look at the US.

The publication of LafargeHolcim’s annual financial results for 2016 this week starts to give us a review of the year as a whole for the multinational cement producers. Of the larger producers, CNBM, Anhui Conch and Votorantim are expected to make their releases in April 2016, so we’ll focus here on the available data from LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement, Cemex and BuzziUnicem, with UltraTech Cement included for some regional variety.

Graph 1: Sales revenue from multinational cement producers in 2015 and 2016 (Euro millions). Source: Company financial reports.

As can be seen in Graph 1 currency exchange effects have caused problems for producers’ sales revenues, with LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement and Cemex all reporting falling sales on a direct comparison. Subsequently like-for-like adjustments have cropped up repeatedly on balance sheets to try and present a more investor-friendly picture, although even this has still seen LafargeHolcim and HeidelbergCement report small declines. In this sense it’s a little unfair to include India’s UtraTech Cement, given that the bulk of its business is in just one country. Operating in just one country though has its own risks, one of which we’ll discuss below.

Unsurprisingly, given the poor sales, the focus for the multinationals has generally been on earnings measures such as operating earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA). Here, LafargeHolcim and Cemex have done far better as they have streamlined their businesses. For example, LafargeHolcim’s operating EBITDA rose by 12.9% year-on-year to Euro4.895bn in 2016.

Graph 2: Cement sales volumes from multinational cement producers in 2015 and 2016 (Mt). Source: Company financial reports.

Graph 2 looks at cement sales volumes. Most of the producers have made small gains or losses in 2016 with the stark exception of LafargeHolcim. Its cement sales fell by 12.9% to 233Mt in 2016. More alarmingly, for the fourth quarter of 2016 LafargeHolcim blamed an increased rate of declining cement sales volumes on demonetisation in India, tough trading conditions in Indonesia and a unusually good year (in 2015) to compare itself against in the US.

On that point about India, UltraTech may not have released any sales volumes figures but other larger Indian producers have experienced problems with the government’s decision to remove certain banknotes from circulation in November 2016. A report by HDFC Securities this week suggests that cement volumes fell by 13% year-on-year in January 2017 following a 9% decline in December 2016. The country may be facing its first decline in cement sales volumes since 2001. This is squarely down to government policy.

On a regional basis probably the most worrying theme has been an apparent slowdown in the US towards the end of the year. As mentioned above LafargeHolcim has blamed it on a good previous year and Cemex concurred. Buzzi Unicem also reported the same trend but didn’t attribute it to anything in paticular. President Donald Trump’s push for US$1tr investment on infrastructure in the US should help to reverse this along with anything that happens with his Mexican border wall plans.

The other area to pay attention to is Indonesia. Both LafargeHolcim and HeidelbergCement reported tough trading here prompted by production overcapacity. Locally, Semen Indonesia said this week that its sales revenue fell by 3% to US$1.95bn in 2016 and it still has new cement plants to be commissioned in 2017.

The overall picture for 2016 from these cement producers appears to be one of companies treading water and making savings as their sales were battered. As mentioned previously (The global cement industry in 2016, Global Cement Magazine, December 2016) the geographic spread of assets the multinationals own doesn’t seem to be protecting them from world events as well as they once did. On the plus side northern Europe seemed to pick up or at least hold steady in 2016 but various political shocks such as the UK departure from the European Union and elections in France and Germany may scupper this. In a similar vein India remains one of the key markets but government policy has potentially dented its growth this year. In the US cement volumes may be slowing but Donald Trump is riding to the rescue! With this continued high level of potentially disruptive events cement producers are probably hoping for a quiet year in 2017.