Heidelberg/LafargeHolcim: feet of clay
A picture shows a bucket grab in front of the logo of French cement company Lafarge outside on of its plants on April 7, 2014 in Paris. Swiss cement group Holcim and French rival Lafarge are merging to create the biggest global concrete group worth 40.0 billion euros, with an eye to booming construction in emerging markets, the new group LafargeHolcim announced on April 7. The deal, a major event in the global construction industry described in a joint statement as "a merger of equals", will be based on the offer of one Holcim share for one Lafarge share. AFP PHOTO / FRANCK FIFE (Photo credit should read FRANCK FIFE/AFP/Getty Images)©AFP

For most companies, generating returns above the cost of capital is the norm. In the cement business, it is the exception; the achievement merited its very own bullet-point in HeidelbergCement’s annual results statement. There was no such line in the LafargeHolcim’s report, also released on Thursday.

A glance at the other key points reveals why. Lafarge’s sales were flat in currency-adjusted terms, and operating profit fell — even after adjusting for currency and one-off costs arising from the mega-merger that created the company. There was a SFr3bn ($3bn) impairment of assets and net debt stands at SFr17bn, against a market value of SFr25bn. Over at Heidelberg, profit is rising, debt is falling and the dividend has just been increased by 73 per cent. Since the merger closed last July, LafargeHolcim shares have fallen almost 40 per cent. Heidelberg’s are flat.

The obvious conclusion is that Heidelberg is being rewarded for sticking to its knitting while Lafarge and Holcim are paying the price for an empire-building, ego-driven merger that proved difficult to execute. A more cynical argument is that Heidelberg did an equally bad deal when it bought Hanson in 2007 — and is simply further ahead in its financial rehab.

Which is right? Buying Hanson was a terrible deal in many respects. Heidelberg paid 12 times earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation, in cash, just as the cycle peaked (it trades at seven times now). A year later, interest costs were 50 times dividends. At LafargeHolcim, which was, thankfully, an all-share combination, the two are more or less equal even now.

Heidelberg is also more exposed to the areas where demand is growing, such as the UK and Africa. Lafarge is suffering from its larger relative presence in Latin America and Asia, where demand growth is sluggish. Overall, cement sales in 2015 were 256m tonnes — 68 per cent of capacity. It is cutting costs, and one day, its results will look like Heidelberg’s do today. But until both companies can create value routinely, rather than now and again, their shares are best avoided.

Lex

Email the Lex team at lex@ft.com

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2016. You may share using our article tools.

Please don’t cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Source link

LinkedIn
Twitter
Facebook
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Email
Latest Issue
Issue 324 : Jan 2025