BR100 Decreased By (-1.39%)
BR30 Decreased By (-1.72%)
KSE100 Decreased By (-1.3%)
KSE30 Decreased By (-1.25%)
AGHA 7.92 Decreased By ▼ -0.17 (-2.1%)
BECO 5.20 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-1.33%)
BML 59.25 Decreased By ▼ -0.13 (-0.22%)
BOP 33.68 Decreased By ▼ -0.51 (-1.49%)
CNERGY 9.81 Increased By ▲ 0.19 (1.98%)
CSIL 5.42 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-1.45%)
FCCL 53.52 Decreased By ▼ -0.63 (-1.16%)
FFL 16.68 Decreased By ▼ -0.16 (-0.95%)
FNEL 1.21 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-1.63%)
KEL 7.35 Decreased By ▼ -0.24 (-3.16%)
KOSM 5.61 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-1.23%)
LOTCHEM 29.11 Decreased By ▼ -1.32 (-4.34%)
MLCF 95.50 Decreased By ▼ -2.66 (-2.71%)
NBP 204.35 Decreased By ▼ -4.44 (-2.13%)
NCPL 58.24 Decreased By ▼ -1.37 (-2.3%)
NPL 67.79 Decreased By ▼ -2.08 (-2.98%)
OGDC 317.94 Decreased By ▼ -5.42 (-1.68%)
PACE 10.71 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-3.25%)
PAEL 41.83 Decreased By ▼ -0.42 (-0.99%)
PIBTL 16.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.32 (-1.9%)
PPL 219.74 Decreased By ▼ -4.99 (-2.22%)
PRL 44.59 Increased By ▲ 2.94 (7.06%)
PTC 70.77 Decreased By ▼ -0.35 (-0.49%)
SSGC 28.93 Decreased By ▼ -0.38 (-1.3%)
TBL 9.84 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-1.2%)
TELE 8.76 Decreased By ▼ -0.23 (-2.56%)
TPL 16.45 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.42%)
TPLP 12.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.67 (-5.25%)
TREET 22.80 Decreased By ▼ -0.26 (-1.13%)
TRG 60.03 Decreased By ▼ -0.42 (-0.69%)

The third quarter of the fiscal year FY25 reveals why the cement business is working so remarkablywell for some companies, and not so much for others.

At a time when combined earnings for cement makers are up 2.2x, at a time when 12 out of the 16 listed companies recorded a positive growth in post-tax earnings, at a time when domestic demand is virtually absent and yet margins for 9 out of 16 companies are higher than last year. That’s a broad win for the industry, if there ever was one. And yet, some companies simply stand out.

While mid-sized companies like Cherat and Kohat cement outperform larger players in terms of margins—as they frequently do—this time the light is shining on Mapleleaf Cement. The company that is treading on Lucky Cement’s path and winning.

Similar to Lucky, Mapleleaf’s investments are bearing fruit. For instance, in 3QFY25, 65 percent of MLCF’s earnings were buttressed by “other income” which materialized with dividends received from its wholly owned subsidiary Maple Leaf Power. Lucky’s other income was also similar—64 percent of before-tax earnings which came from 4 of its subsidiaries in addition to returns from short-term investments.

Through these investments, both companies were able to absorb high overheads than peers, 9 percent and 8 percent of revenue for Luck and MLCF respectively compared to industry average of 6 percent.Illustratively, Bestway which is arguably a much bigger player than Mapleleaf cement by every measure, and whose revenues were1.5x of MLCF’s in 3QFY25,which also happens to havelesser overheads (as % of revenue) than MLCF, earned much lower profits than the latter. Their difference in net margins is stark: 23 percent vs MLCF’s 47 percent.

The kicker is MLCF’s offtake during the nine-months this year dropped far more than Bestway, and yet both had the same level of gross margins. The use of alternative power sources (solar, coal, WHR) also gives MLCF quite the edge.

In an economy like Pakistan, where growth is inconsistent and frequent balance of payments crises lead to macroeconomic instability and slowdowns, cement companies that diversify both their markets and investments are better positioned to perform consistently, and better than others.

Comments

Comments are closed for this article.