Cement industry cracks under cost burden; CCI hefty penalty adds to crisis

The cost of making cement in India has jumped by half over the last four years, and the rising prices of raw materials, energy and freight all indicate that manufacturers have a tough job on their hands to keep their plants ticking.

Ironically, almost all the costs related to the production of cement and its transportation are the monopoly of the government, leaving companies with no elbow room to control these factors. Adding to the problems, the growth in demand for cement has lost momentum due to the sharp slowdown in economic expansion, analysts say.

Cement is a bulk commodity and it needs to be shipped across vast distances to reach the consumer. Freight makes up a little more than a fifth of the total cost of cement. It has climbed more than a quarter on a compounded annual growth rate over the past seven years. This includes transportation costs of clinker, but excludes freight on raw materials which is usually added to the cost of raw materials.

So, the 30 per cent hike in freight rates in the March railway budget meant a stiff increase in costs. To move a 50 kg bag of cement from Andhra Pradesh, a key producing state, to Maharashtra the new rail freight rates added Rs.15 to each bag; to Kerala Rs.22 and as much as Rs.30 to the north east.

Cement Factory: A representative pic

Because the railways are state-owned and freight rates set by the government are not negotiable, cement producers have been using the improving highway network to move cement via road. About 35 per cent of cement produced in India is today carried by the railways, down from more than 60 per cent until a decade ago.

The railways are expected to ship at least 30 per cent of the cement in the years to come, given its predominance over longer distances. The economic size of a cement plant has risen to 5 million tonnes a year from 1 million tonnes, meaning larger long haul costs to get the stuff to the ultimate buyer.

It’s only a matter of time before the government raises diesel prices. This would have the potential to balloon transportation costs further. Again, this is out of bounds of cement producers.

The two other major costs are energy and raw materials. Stable supplies of power and coal, also mostly controlled by the state, have always been a challenge. In the absence of competition, the coal produced by government-run mines is of poor quality with high ash and low calorific value.

As a result, cement companies also depend on imported coal of high calorific value. However, the rupee’s sharp depreciation and Indonesia’s – a major coal supplier – recent moves to jack up prices and restrict exports pose huge risks to costs.

All these factors have resulted in a sharp rise in the cost of building a new cement plant over the past two years. With prices not keeping pace with the increase in input and other costs,  EBITDA (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation) have plummeted to $1,000 per tonne from a greenfield cement plant, compared with $1,500 that was initially expected.

It is against this background that the punitive fines of Rs.63 billion imposed on 11 cement companies by the Competition Commission of India must be viewed. Although the penalty for alleged cartelisation is being appealed in a higher tribunal, the stated objective to control pricing without taking into consideration costs and slowing demand is bound to cause more harm.

India is the world’s second biggest producer of cement after China, with output soaring after the sector was completely decontrolled in 1989. But the emerging scenario is detrimental for the industry and the country. 

Competition Commission fine on Cement industry - Not so fine!

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has imposed a fine of more than Rs 6,000 crore on 11 cement makers alleging cartelisation and price fixing from May 2009 to March 2011.

It is a record penalty and is seen as an attempt by the ant-trust regulator to assert itself. But the last word has not been said on the issue, yet. The cement makers can go on appeal to the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT), and even to the Supreme Court.

Legal experts think the CCI is on slippery ground here. Cement companies say the CCI rules require the commission to establish the existence of a cartel only if there is a written agreement among the parties involved. That is not the case here and the commission has based its findings on circumstantial evidence.

Fact is, despite all the arguments about lower utilization at cement plants and higher prices that informants in the case -- the Builders Association of India -- has brought against the cement companies, it would be tough to prove that cement prices rose because of cartelisation. As the Cement Manufacturers Association (CMA) submitted before the commission, the report is based on surmises and conjecture.

The CCI ruling said its director general has submitted that the cement companies have enough scope to reduce the price of cement but have tried to earn better margins on sales instead of utilizing more capacity. The argument flies in the face of the very system of free market economics. The shareholders of cement companies want the managements to bring them the best possible returns. If cement demand has been going up despite rising prices, that means optimum pricing for the commodity has not been discovered and the managements did the right thing by raising prices further. If the builders thought the prices were too high to make their business unviable, then they would have stopped buying cement, and the prices would have come down naturally. That is how market economics works.

That it never happened possibly points to another interesting aspect -- by bringing the case to the CCI, the builders may have been trying to protect the fat margins that they had commanded at the height of the housing boom. As the CMA said, the third-parties from whom information was collected in this case by the CCI are builders and cement dealers, who all have their own vested interests. The CCI's very enquiry rests on thin ice here.

Another interesting observation made by the CCI was that the common platform of CMA was used for collection and dissemination of the information on prices of different companies. The CMA countered that it never collected prices by brand but only average prices for passing on to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion. Furthermore, it had been asked by the ministry of commerce and industry to collect the data on a monthly basis to calculate the Wholesale Price Index.

It is akin to penalizing an organization for following the orders of a government department. Besides, as the association said, the information is available publicly!

The CMA also said mere price parallelisms cannot be used to infer cartelization and it is bound to occur in cases where a homologous product is sold in the same market.

Overall, despite all the headlines the CCI made, it looks like the findings have not strong legal base and could be thrown out by higher legal institutions. Till then, however, the CCI’s action has introduced an element of uncertainty into the cement industry at a time of weak demand and slowing economy. The action will have the opposite effect to what the CCI intended under the current economic circumstances.

Indian Cement COs gear up to defend against CCI penalty

Opinion - BNK

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has imposed a fine of more than Rs 6,000 crore on 11 cement makers alleging cartelisation and price fixing from May 2009 to March 2011.

It is a record penalty and is seen as an attempt by the ant-trust regulator to assert itself. But the last word has not been said on the issue, yet. The cement makers can go on appeal to the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT), and even to the Supreme Court.

Legal experts think the CCI is on slippery ground here. Cement companies say the CCI rules require the commission to establish the existence of a cartel only if there is a written agreement among the parties involved. That is not the case here and the commission has based its findings on circumstantial evidence. There are around 47 cement players and any sort of agreement or understanding is next to impossible. That too, when the industry has added around 100 million tons capacity in the last three years.

Cement factory: A representative Pic

Fact is, despite all the arguments about lower capacity utilization at cement plants and higher prices that informants in the case -- the Builders Association of India -- has brought against the cement companies, it would be tough to prove that cement prices rose because of cartelisation. As the Cement Manufacturers Association (CMA) submitted before the commission, that the capacity utilization is bound to be lower on account of higher capacity growth rate as compared to cement demand growth rate and that the report is based on surmises and conjecture.

The CCI ruling said its director general has submitted that the cement companies have enough scope to reduce the price of cement but have tried to earn better margins on sales instead of utilizing more capacity. The argument flies in the face of the very system of free market economics where the price of cement is determined by demand and supply in the market. Interestingly CCI has totally ignored the submission of the cement industry that cement manufacturers cost is more than the increase in the Wholesale Price Index as well as the cement price increase in the market.

 The shareholders of cement companies want the managements to bring them the best possible returns. But in fact, it is the government which wants to earn more from the cement sector, as government levies have gone up from Rs 49 per bag in FY07 to Rs 72 per bag in FY 12.  This adds to the cement price increase. The result is that despite increase in cement prices, costs, and government levies, PAT margins of companies have come down in FY 11.  

There is another interesting aspect -- by bringing the case to the CCI, the builders may have been trying to protect the fat margins that they had commanded at the height of the housing boom. As the CMA said, the third-parties from whom information was collected in this case by the CCI are builders and cement dealers, who all have their own vested interests. The CCI's very enquiry rests on thin ice here.

Cement factory: A representative pic

Another interesting observation made by the CCI was that the common platform of CMA was used for collection and dissemination of the information on prices of different companies. The CMA countered that it never collected prices by brand but only average prices for passing on to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion. Furthermore, it had been asked by the ministry of commerce and industry to collect the data on a monthly basis to calculate the Wholesale Price Index.

It is akin to penalizing an organization for following the orders of a government department. Besides, as the association said, the information is available publicly!

The CMA also said mere price parallelisms cannot be used to infer cartelization and it is bound to occur in cases where a homologous product is sold in the same market.

Overall, despite all the headlines the CCI made, it looks like the findings have not strong legal base and could be thrown out by higher legal institutions. Till then, however, the CCI’s action has introduced an element of uncertainty into the cement industry at a time of weak demand and slowing economy. The action will have the opposite effect to what the CCI intended under the current economic circumstances.

CCI order on cement: punishes performers, say analysts

MUMBAI, July 08, 2012: The Competition Commission of India’s recent order on eleven Indian cement companies imposing a whopping Rs 6,000 crore penalty for alleged cartelization is bound to have a crippling the industry – the world’s second largest after China - leading analysts said.

"It's a classic case of performers being punished,” said Mr Sudip Bandyopadhyay, MD and CEO of Destimony Securities. 

“In some cases the penalty imposed is higher than a year’s earning for many players and this could negatively affect the health of the company jeopardizing shareholder interest,” Mr Bandyopadhyay said and wondered: “Penalty seems to have been imposed on circumstantial evidence and not on the basis of concrete proof of cartelization.”

“As it is, the Indian economy is already suffering from negative developments on account of retrospective amendment in the Income Tax laws and the reverberations of the 2G scam. Further, penalties on core sectors like cement will weaken the FII confidence, as well as that of the domestic investor which will go on to hamper growth and destabilize the economy even further," he added.

The Competition Commission of India had imposed penalty of over Rs 6,000 crores on 11 cement manufacturers based on a complaint filed by Builders Association of India. The Commission has also imposed penalty on the Cement Manufacturers Association

In its report titled "CCI bites hard; Industry ready to fight back", Anand Rathi Share and Stock Brokers Limited says the order is largely based on “circumstantial evidence and less concrete or direct evidence” for an industry with a relatively large number of players.

Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd said in its report after analysing the CCI order that “Though some of the evidence presented by CCI could be strong, we believe they may not be strong enough to prove the charge of cartelization.”

“Collection and circulation of data by CMA has been considered as anti-competitive practice. However CMA has argued it collects data under instructions from DIPP for computation of wholesale price index and, hence, no adverse inference can be drawn from this. Further, data collection and dissemination activities of CMA mentioned by CCI are pretty much the activities carried by any trade/business association,” Emkay said.

“We also observe that CCI has provided strong circumstantial and statistical evidence like date and venue of CMA’s ‘High Power Committee’ meeting and subsequent movement in cement prices indicative of coordinate price actions by cement manufactures. However the limited period and price analysis of such meetings and that too for specific season (particularly construction season when cement prices usually witness seasonal up tick) could lead to lot of subjective inference and weakens statistical assessment. For eg .Commission gave instances of CMA meeting held on Jan-11, Feb-11 and April-11 and no specific explanation of why only these three meetings have been referred to when meetings of its High Power Committee take place periodically,” it added.

According to BRIC Data, an emerging markets intelligence company, India is ranked as the second-largest producer of cement in the world, only behind China. The Indian cement industry increased in value at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.14% during the review period (2007–2011), and is projected to grow at a CAGR of 10.64% over the forecast period (2012–2016). This growth is primarily attributed to the government’s high level of infrastructure spending, and the country’s increasing number of residential and commercial construction activities, BRIC Data says.

The Indian government invested US$500 billion on infrastructure during the Eleventh Five-Year Plan (2007–2012) and revealed plans to invest a further US$1 trillion on infrastructure during the Twelfth Five-Year Plan (2012–2017).

The large-scale investment on various infrastructure projects, including roads, railways, bridges and ports, will generate a huge demand for cement over the forecast period, BRIC Data says.

Credit rating agency CRISIL said the penalty on the four CRISIL-rated cement companies is unlikely to impact their credit quality. “CRISIL believes that the financial risk profiles of these cement manufacturers are strong enough to offset the impact of the penalty. The penalty is sizeable at 75 per cent of the aggregate net profits of the four rated cement players for 2011-12 (refers to financial year, April 1 to March 31),” the agency said.

CRISIL, however, said robust liquidity and low gearing will cushion the credit risk profiles of these companies against the impact of the penalty. Moreover, cash outflows on account of the order are unlikely immediately, given that the players may appeal against it at the Competition Appellate Tribunal.

“The credit risk profiles of these companies are, therefore, expected to remain unchanged in the near term,” it said.

Indian cement industry makes rapid strides

Emerges 2nd largest globally

MUMBAI, July 02, 2012 (BusinessNewsbank): The Indian cement industry has registered a phenomenal growth contributing handsomely to the exchequer.

Starting with a mere 1.47 million tonne capacity s at the time of the independence, the Indian Cement industry is now globally competitive in technology, quality and cost of production, with a capacity of 320 million tonnes, emerging as the world’s largest cement producer after China.

It is the fourth largest contributor to the Union Excise duties and employs 10 million people directly or indirectly.

India has a cement capacity of about 320 million tonnes distributed amongst 47 players, not including mini cement plants.

In the last three years, around 100 million tonne of capacity has been added. It is pertinent to note that for every new plant, it takes at least three years to ramp up the capacity to 100% percent.

In the first two years, new plants could typically operate at about 45% and 65 % of their capacity. Hence capacity utilization numbers could be misleading unless read with the age of the plant.

So if 20 million ton capacity is added in one year, it could mean that only 45 per cent of that, i.e. 9 million tonnes can actually be produced in that year.