The government is losing
immense amount of revenue from the menace of tyre smuggling
By MUHAMMAD BASHIR
CHAUDHRY
June 10 - 16, 2002
Some 10-15 years ago, ownership of sugar and cement
plants in Pakistan was envy of every top businessman because of the
bright profit prospects. Now it is a different scenario. Cement and
sugar units are operating with lackluster performance and the country
appears to be stuck with excessive capacity, far beyond our local
needs and much in excess of the competitive export prospects.
Excessive capacity in sugar and cement has contributed most to the
troubles of both these important sectors with adverse consequents for
stakeholders particularly the creditors and the minority shareholders.
The unenviable position will be clear if one looks at the share
quotations of the listed companies as well as the respective Price/
Earnings ratios (Annex-One to this paper). Low market prices and very
low or negative P/E ratios amply depict the prevailing troubled
conditions. The shares of a large number of sugar companies are not
listed on stock exchanges but their condition is not expected to be
much different.
This paper is an attempt to discuss the reasons
that led to the unhappy situation, to guess the amount of funds tied
up, to know the relative sufferings of the stakeholders and to discuss
if establishment of such excessive capacity can be controlled in a
developing country like Pakistan that is moving towards market
economy. This analysis may possibly also help in better allocation of
scarce resources in future.
The arrive at the estimates of excessive capacity,
the installed capacity for Portland cement and the white sugar
respectively is compared with the existing demand for both these
products in Table-A.
POSSIBLE
REASONS FOR EXCESSIVE CAPACITY:
THE FOLLOWING ARE
THE PROBABLE MAIN REASONS FOR THIS PHENOMENON:
CEMENT PLANTS:
1. New capacity
is based on modern technology and the plants are of bigger capacity.
Sponsors of the new plants probably were of the opinion that with
modern and more efficient plants, they will be able to force out the
old plants and thus create enough space for the new capacity. However,
in actual this did not happen. The old cement mills are based on
wet-process or earlier versions of the dry-process. These plants are
not as efficient as the modern plants. Some of the old capacity should
have been retired long ago but it was not, in some cases due to good
economic reasons. The owners of these plants perceive them viable, as
there was not much of a depreciation charge and little debt servicing,
so they got enough cash by continuing with the operations.
2. New cement
capacity was also planned based on increased activity in construction
and the start of many mega projects. However, it appears the mega
projects were late in coming to initiation stage and also that the
local housing and construction activity did not pick up as much as was
expected.
3. Because of
cheap labour and availability of all raw materials, big potential of
export of cement is mentioned while justifying capacity gap and in
determining the viability of new cement plants. After the plants are
established, the exports might not materialize in volumes as
originally envisaged due to a number of reasons and thus the excessive
capacity.
SUGAR PLANTS:
1. Sugar plants
are thought to be vehicles for development of agriculture and for the
economic development of the rural areas. On local level this may be so
but overall viability of the sugar plants need to be also judged from
country perspective. If there are a number of sugar mills already
operating in a particular sugarcane growing location, one must be
weary of putting up new sugar mills there. Obviously, the concerned
people ignored this reality and thus contributed towards the excessive
capacity.
2. Sugar
production depends, to a large extent, on the availability of
sugarcane in a particular year. In case local production is less, the
deficit is met through imports. Large quantities of sugar also used to
be smuggled out to the neighbouring countries. This may have caused
some confusion as to the total demand and supply requirements.
3. In the past
Pakistan offered large subsidy (Rs 4500 per tonne) on sugar exports.
This may also have been a contributing factor towards excessive
capacity. The then pricing system for the sugarcane may also be one of
the probable reasons.
GENERAL:
1. Certain big
business groups with a number of successful industries become
over-confident and are able to set up industries for which there is
marginal space for additional capacity. The creditors also prefer to
go along and happily finance such business ventures, confident that
the group will honour the commitments in any eventuality. In certain
cases new plants may have been installed disregarding or misreading
the projected demand / supply situation. This attitude might have
contributed in the setting up of certain plants in sugar and cement
sectors.
2. Lack of
reliable statistics about production capacity, actual production,
export prospects, government policies, etc. might also have
contributed for the situation.
MONEY
STUCK IN THE EXCESSIVE CAPACITY AND THE OVERALL EXPOSURE:
Cement and sugar plants have a long history of
profitable operations in Pakistan. In those early days capital cost
was relatively less and the technology used was not so advanced. In
the last decade the capital cost of new plants has been many times
higher as compared to the cost incurred some twenty or thirty years
ago. This is understandable particularly if one looks at the
Dollar-Rupee rates over this period. New plants have been added while
old plants in many cases have not been retired. Old plants generate
sufficient cash for the owners, as there is little debt servicing
required or depreciation to be accounted for. In such a situation one
does not find clear demarcation as to when the installed capacity
reached excessive limit and as to the cost of which particular plants
to be used for estimating the money stuck up in the excessive
capacity. Both for sugar and cement plants, the average capital cost
during past 7-10 years have been used. As is evident from Table-A
above, for Portland cement the excess capacity is around 40%, whereas
for white sugar it is about 50%. Such capacity required huge capital
outlay, the volume of which been guessed in Table -B, below:
Capital expenditure incurred for the excessive
capacity is guessed at around Rs 43 billion. However, it may be noted
that the situation created by the excessive capacity has jeopardized
both the existing as well as the new investment. Existing plants as
well as newly set up plants, all are facing difficult odds. Some are
showing meager profits while others are in red. Therefore for the
purpose of analysis, the total investment in both the cement and sugar
sectors need to be taken in account. Such investment might be in the
range of Rs100-125 billion. Assuming debt equity ratio of 60:40 for
the lower figure, the debt portion is approx. Rs.60 billion and the
equity portion is Rs. 40 billion. This is large money by any
standards. If cement and sugar plants do not perform well, it will
have devastating impact on different stakeholders particularly the
creditors, investment banks, leasing and Modarabas as well as the
minority shareholders from the general public. In fact, the suffering
on individual and institution level has been high and painful.
Perhaps, this might have precipitated the demise or merger of some of
the DFIs or banks.
ADVERSE
EFFECTS ON DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS:
The
following may help for better appreciation of the impact on different
stakeholders:
1. Cement
plants, or for that matter other large industrial plants, are financed
through financial resources of the project sponsors, general public
and the creditors, both local and international. In case the plant is
not able to operate near full capacity, the cash generation and the
profitability might not be enough to meet the expectations of
stakeholders by way of taxes, profits, dividends or appreciation in
the value of shares on the stock exchanges.
2. The cement
plants can meet the demand operating at about 60% of the installed
capacity. In fact every plant has been operating around this number
and there were allegations of existence of some sort of cartel but the
cement manufacturers denied it. The rest of the capacity is not being
utilized. As such all the fixed charges are now to be covered through
this relatively lower capacity. This way per tonnes of output, the
fixed charges are relatively higher. There is some adverse impact on
the overall cost due to lower capacity operations. This raises the
cost of production per unit and the product competitiveness is
reduced. The prospects of export of cement and sugar have brightened
up due to the rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts in the
neighbouring Afghanistan, but this will have limited impact on the use
of excessive capacity.
The consumer generally benefit if there is excess
capacity and the manufacturers are in a mood to fight it out through
war. This, however, does not appear to be happening in Pakistan. The
manufacturers of cement plants are operating around 60% capacity while
maintaining prices at levels higher than the ones announced by the
government. The impact on other stakeholders is briefly given below:
1. COUNTRY AND THE
GOVERNMENT:
a. Higher debt
in case of foreign currency loans and thus higher debt serving and
drain on country's scares foreign exchange resources.
b. Lower
activity so lower taxes to the government and lower opportunities to
small and medium industries in any way related to these sectors. Also,
lower employment opportunities (direct and indirect).
c. Possibly
more bad loans and investment loss in the financial sector.
2. The Company:
a. Higher
depreciation each year.
b. Higher mark
up / interest payment.
c. Less profit
or loss situation.
d. Lower
dividends or nothing at all.
e. Deep
depreciation of the share price.
3. Foreign and
Local Creditors:
a. High
possibility of default in debt servicing or actual default. This has
direct threat to the very existence of the creditors.
b. Numerous
requests for rescheduling or debt restructuring, with little hope of
recovery even after that.
c. No or little
return on investment in case of investment in shares. This also
threatens solvency of the institution concerned.
4. Raw Material
Suppliers and Providers of Stores / Spares / Services:
a. The payment
situation should not be that bad in case of cement plants. The main
raw materials and spares constitute a small percentage of the cost of
cement. Energy and power cost are the main elements that are recovered
by the utilities each month.
b. The payment
situation is very bad in case of sugar. Raw material is sugar cane and
the mills are not famous for timely payment even in normal years or
conditions. The farmers suffer badly as payment for the sugarcane is
delayed for months, even for years in certain cases. The presence of
middlemen often muddles the situation.
c. Providers of
stores, supplies and services also experience delays in the clearance
of bills, in some case total loss is also not ruled out.
5.
Institutional investors and minority shareholders: The situation
created by the excessive capacity can be visualized from a review of
the Sectoral Indices, and Market Capitalization (summarized in Table-C
below) and the Share Quotations, P/E ratios (given in Annex-One). A
larger number of minority shareholders have lost a fortune and so have
a number of financial institutions. The development overtime and how
the fortunes experienced ups and downs can be briefly seen from
Table-C, below:
6. GENERAL PUBLIC:
Profitable industries contribute to the economic
welfare of the populace. In the absence of viability there is loss of
confidence in the investment process in the country and the rationale
for savings is shattered to some extent. Loss of confidence is a
serious cause and timely actions may be taken by the government to
avoid repetition.
WHO SUFFERS THE MOST?
There are four distinct stakeholders namely,
minority share holders, project sponsors, foreign creditors and the
local creditors. Because of little or no dividends the minority
shareholders suffers the most. Local creditors are the next to lose a
fortune. The foreign creditors such as IFC, CDC have bigger clout and
in most cases will get paid or the loans will be rescheduled on their
terms. The project sponsors also do not get any dividends. However, as
they are running the management of the plants as Chief Executive or
Executive Directors, they are partly compensated for their efforts.
They do not have to worry for their day-to-day expenses. Most of them
probably would not avail the opportunities of making extra money due
to their being in control of the operations and all other activities
of the mills / companies concerned. However, one never knows when
greed overcomes the moral and legal restraints.
AVOIDING EXCESSIVE
CAPACITY IN FUTURE:
Capacity forecasting is a difficult area. If one is
more careful about expansion in capacity, there might develop a
situations when local or export demand is not fulfilled and there is
threat of losing established market. Moreover, Pakistan is moving
towards market economy and as such the government might not like to
put undue restrictions on the setting up of new plants or capacity in
the country. However, the minority shareholders / general public might
protected through provided more detailed and accurate information as
to the existing capacity vis-a-vis existing demand for cement or white
sugar or for other products. The Prospects for floating of shares or
for the placement of TFCs may better be made more informative so that
they are in a better position to assess the risks. The sponsors, their
financial advisors and other concerned parties may be held accountable
for misinformation or for misleading or untrue statements. The
creditors, both local and foreign, together with the institutional
investors are also expected to play a bigger role in thorough
assessment of the risks involved in the credit operations particularly
all relevant factors including demand supply situation vis-a-vis plant
capacity. They have to identify and manage the risks well for
themselves as well as to help the minority shareholders with much
better information. They owe it to their country and its people.
|
TABLE--A |
|
Product |
Installed Capacity |
Estimated Demand |
Excessive Capacity |
|
|
(Million Tonnes) |
|
|
Portland Cement |
15.75 |
11.00 |
4.75 |
|
White Sugar |
4.67 |
3.15 |
1.52 |
|
(* For cement, this
does not include Galadhari Cement and
expansion projects of Pakland and Askari Niampur).
(** Sugar
capacity estimated at 85% level, for 150 days in a year).
|
|
TABLE--B |
|
Product |
Excessive Capacity |
Ave.Cost-Cement Plant-3300
TPD* |
Ave.cost-Sugar Plant6000 TPD**
cane crush |
Total Cost of Excessive Cap. |
| |
(Million Tonnes) |
(Rs. In million) |
(Rs. In million) |
(Rs. In million) |
|
Portland Cement |
4.75 |
6,150 |
|
29,213 |
|
White Sugar |
1.52 |
|
Rs700 M * 20 plants |
14,000 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Cost of Excessive Capacity, both of Cement and Sugar |
43,213 |
|
(* Set up in late nineties in the
private sector)
(** Set up during mid
nineties)
|
TABLE-
C
Sectoral Indices of Share Prices (1990-91=100) and Market
Capitalization |
| |
CEMENT |
SUGAR |
|
|
Years |
Share Price Indices |
Market
Capitaliz. |
% of Total
capitaliz. |
Share Price Indices |
Market
Capitaliz. |
% of Total
capitaliz. |
Total Capitaliz
Ord. Shares. |
| |
|
(Billion Rs) |
|
|
(Billion Rs) |
|
(Billion Rs) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1991 -92 |
305.86 |
6.69 |
3.06% |
123.43 |
6.84 |
3.13% |
218.36 |
|
1992-93 |
382.35 |
11.45 |
5.34% |
121.39 |
7.59 |
3.54% |
214.43 |
|
1993-94 |
986.48 |
31.38 |
7.76% |
153.50 |
9.63 |
2.38% |
404.58 |
|
1994-95 |
496.82 |
22.20 |
7.57% |
98.73 |
6.12 |
2.09% |
293.33 |
|
1995-96 |
220.17 |
.18.23 |
4.99% |
86.06 |
5.21 |
1.43% |
365.24 |
|
1996-97 |
144.71 |
14.45 |
3.08% |
80.27 |
4.77 |
1.02% |
469.15 |
|
1997-98 |
65.60 |
6.40 |
2.47% |
70.60 |
4.30 |
1.66% |
259.30 |
|
1998-99 |
69.42 |
6.02 |
2.08% |
70.97 |
4.17 |
1.44% |
289.20 |
|
1999-00 |
106.22 |
10.21 |
2.61 % |
69.50 |
3.83 |
0.98% |
391.86 |
|
2000-01 * |
76.57 |
7.54 |
2.30% |
78.30 |
4.08 |
1.24% |
328.24 |
|
2002(April) |
|
15.54 |
3.64% |
|
4.45 |
1.04% |
427.35 |
|
(* end March) |
|
ANNEX-ONE
K S E: Share Quotations and P/E Ratios of Cement and Sugar
Sectors (as reported in
the Business Recorder in its issue of 25th April, 2002). |
|
Cement Sector
Companies |
P/E Ratio |
Prev. Rs Rate |
Last Rate Rs |
High Rs. |
Low Rs. |
Turnover(Nos.) |
|
1 Bestway Cement |
- |
18.45 |
18.45 |
- |
- |
- |
|
2 Chakwal Cement |
- |
1.80 |
1.80 |
1.80 |
1.65 |
144,500 |
|
3 Cherat Cement |
3.36 |
24.00 |
25.00 |
25.00 |
24.00 |
25,500 |
|
4 D.G. Cement |
-0.66 |
10.50 |
11.05 |
11.45 |
10.50 |
6,640,000 |
|
5 Dadabhoy Cement |
0.04 |
5.65 |
5.70 |
5.70 |
5.70 |
1,000 |
|
6 Dandot Cement |
-7.12 |
4.45 |
4.50 |
4.50 |
4.50 |
- |
|
7 Essa Cement |
1.41 |
10.00 |
10.15 |
10.15 |
10.05 |
5,500 |
|
8 Fauje Cement |
-1.65 |
3.95 |
4.10 |
4.10 |
3.85 |
79,500 |
|
9 Fecto Cement |
-1.75 |
8.05 |
8.00 |
8.00 |
8.00 |
7,000 |
|
10 Gharibwal |
2.63 |
4.90 |
4.85 |
4.85 |
4.85 |
- |
|
11 Javedan Cement |
-10.54 |
4.55 |
5.00 |
5.00 |
5.00 |
4,000 |
|
12 Kohat Cement |
1.03 |
27.00 |
27.00 |
- |
- |
- |
|
13 Kucky Cement |
0.23 |
9.60 |
9.90 |
10.00 |
9.65 |
338 000 |
|
14 Maple Leaf |
-4.53 |
8.20 |
8.30 |
8.40 |
8.20 |
200000 |
|
15 Mustehkam |
-17.97 |
13.00 |
13.00 |
- |
- |
- |
|
16 Pakistan Slag |
-0.94 |
1.90 |
1.95 |
2.00 |
1.95 |
1,500 |
|
17 Pakland C eme nt |
- |
5.10 |
5.10 |
- |
- |
- |
|
18 Pioneer Cement |
-2.42 |
3.60 |
3.60 |
3.65 |
3.60 |
11,000 |
|
19 Saadi Cement |
- |
2.00 |
2.00 |
- |
- |
- |
|
20 Zeal Pak |
- |
13.90 |
13.90 |
- |
- |
- |
|
Sugar Sector
Companies |
P/E Ratio |
Prev. Rate
Rs. |
Last Rate
Rs. |
High Rs. |
Low Rs. |
Turnover(Nos.) |
|
1 Adam sugar |
-2.41 |
4.25 |
4.25 |
- |
- |
- |
|
2 Al- Abbas Sugar |
1.05 |
16.00 |
16.10 |
16.10 |
16.10 |
1,000 |
|
3 Al-Asif sugar (D) |
-1.67 |
1.05 |
1.05 |
- |
- |
- |
|
4 Al-Noor Sugar |
-0.86 |
9.45 |
9.45 |
- |
- |
- |
|
5 Ansari Sugar |
1.30 |
1.60 |
1.60 |
- |
- |
- |
|
6 Baba Farid |
0.80 |
6.10 |
6.10 |
- |
- |
- |
|
7 Bawany Sugar |
-8.92 |
5.45 |
5.45 |
- |
- |
- |
|
8 Chashma sugar |
0.07 |
13.75 |
14.35 |
14.50 |
13.50 |
58,500 |
|
9 Crescent
Sugar-XB |
- |
7.50 |
7.50 |
- |
- |
- |
|
10 Dewan sugar |
2.45 |
12.50 |
13.00 |
13.00 |
13.00 |
1,000 |
|
11 Faran sugar |
4.14 |
7.10 |
7.10 |
- |
- |
- |
|
12 Fecto sugar |
0.66 |
8.00 |
8.00 |
- |
- |
- |
|
13 Frontier (P) |
- |
37.30 |
37.30 |
- |
- |
- |
|
14 Frontier (O) |
13.64 |
26.00 |
26.00 |
- |
- |
- |
|
15 Habib Sugar |
1.60 |
11.25 |
11.25 |
- |
- |
- |
|
16 Hamza Sugar Mills |
- |
24.50 |
24.50 |
- |
- |
- |
|
17 Haseeb waqas |
-0.83 |
2.70 |
3.00 |
3.00 |
2.60 |
65,000 |
|
18 Hussain Sugar |
0.19 |
11.00 |
11.00 |
11.00 |
11.00 |
500 |
|
19 J.D.W.Sugar |
-2.03 |
5.50 |
5.50 |
- |
- |
- |
|
20 Khairpur Sugar |
-2.23 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
- |
- |
- |
|
21 Kohinoor Sugar |
0.35 |
5.90 |
5.90 |
- |
- |
- |
|
22 Mehran Sugar |
3.20 |
16.25 |
16.25 |
- |
- |
- |
|
23 Mian Mohammad (D) |
- |
0.20 |
0.20 |
- |
- |
- |
|
24 Mirpurkhas Sugar |
-1.42 |
6.55 |
6.55 |
- |
- |
- |
|
25 Mirza Sugar |
- |
1.50 |
1.50 |
1.50 |
1.50 |
500 |
|
26 Noon Sugar-XD |
5.18 |
30.50 |
30.50 |
- |
- |
- |
|
2i Pangrio Sugar (D) |
- |
2.00 |
1.95 |
1.95 |
1.95 |
- |
|
28 Premier Sugar |
46.91 |
58.00 |
58.50 |
58.50 |
58.50 |
- |
|
29 Sakrand Sugar |
-0.68 |
1.50 |
1.50 |
- |
- |
- |
|
30 Salim (O) (D) |
- |
6.00 |
6.00 |
- |
- |
- |
|
31 Salim (P) 6% (D) |
- |
55.90 |
55.90 |
- |
- |
- |
|
32 Salim (PP) (D) |
- |
4.00 |
4.00 |
- |
- |
- |
|
33 Sanghar Sugar |
-1.50 |
4.25 |
4.25 |
- |
- |
- |
|
34 Shahmurad |
0.85 |
5.90 |
5.90 |
- |
- |
- |
|
35 Shahtaj Sugar |
1.67 |
14.40 |
15.05 |
15.05 |
15.05 |
- |
|
36 Shakerganj |
0.15 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
10,000 |
|
37 Sind Abadgars |
1.45 |
5.50 |
5.50 |
- |
- |
- |
|
38 Tandialianwala |
0.58 |
3.60 |
3.60 |
3.65 |
3.40 |
12,000 |
|
39 Thal Industries |
2.40 |
13.00 |
13.00 |
- |
- |
- |
|
40 United Sugar |
0.53 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
- |
- |
- |
|