My rhetorical question about the reason for one of the world’s biggest cement companies disinvesting from South Africa has been answered.
Multinational Holcim, based in Switzerland, brought about one of the bigger black economic empowerment (BEE) deals last year by selling its stake in Holcim South Africa down to 8% from 54% for about R7,4-billion.
Somehow the factual question of whether BEE had spurred the disinvestment became a political issue. In his weekly newsletter the president weighed in to pour scorn on those who, like me, were sceptical about Holcim’s stated reason for selling — to aid BEE.
Actually there is no way of knowing with absolute certainty why companies move in and out of countries. One can hazard an informed guess, though.
Whatever they say or didn’t say, companies quitting South Africa during the apartheid years were probably either leaving because they were succumbing to political pressure or because they feared losing their property in a violent revolution.
The departure of Holcim was always puzzling. A year ago I asked why it was leaving a market where demand is so strong that South Africa is importing cement and where it has been suggested that local cement buyers pay almost double what other developing countries pay.
So why did Holcim sell all but 8% of its original South African investment? The answer exemplifies the foreign investment quandary for South Africa. The question we often pose is: Why don’t foreigners invest in our country?
The question we should ask is: why should they even consider investing in this rather small, not very rich and not very fast-growing emerging market when China and India are now both open for business? China and India have a combined population of more than two billion people as opposed to South Africa’s 48-million and economic growth rates in both countries present enormous opportunities.
In August Holcim announced it planned to spend more than $1-billion expanding its stake in Ambuja Cements India. This is more or less the sum gained from Holcim’s BEE transaction. Another reason could have been looming competition in a market dominated by only four producers. I understand that our competition authorities have been concerned for some time about cement prices. And so they should be.
Figures from the website of the Department of Trade and Industry show that cement price inflation was 260% from January 1994 to January 2007. This is double the figure for general producer price inflation over the same period.
The acquisitions of existing South African cement companies thus far, by Holcim, French cement company Lafarge and Portuguese Cimpor, have proved a point that foreign direct investment does not always aid vigorous new competition. What is needed is investment in new plants, which provides real competition for the established firms.
In the same month that Holcim announced it was expanding its investment in India, Orascom Construction Industries (OCI) launched the Mafikeng Cement Company (MCC) in North West province. The new company will build and operate a cement plant with a production capacity of two million tonnes a year. OCI owns about 68% of the cement start-up. Lined up to own the remaining shares are broad-based empowerment groupings.
The Barolong-Boo Rapulana Traditional Council and the Barolong-Boora Tshidi Traditional Council each represent their respective local communities. The other BEE parties are the Osman Family Trust, Bazan Family Trust and Lezak Family Trust. Redsun Enterprises owns the remainder.
The total investment cost of the project is expected to reach about $440-million (about R3-billion).
OCI also owns 54% of the Egyptian Cement Company (ECC). Holcim owns 44% of ECC. Surely Holcim, through this link, would have known about the pending investment when it made its decision to sell out of Holcim South Africa? On the subject of foreign investment and disinvestment, my previous column suggested that Zimbabwe’s increasing disrespect for property rights would deter further foreign investment.
Lonrho has bought 80% of Blueberry International Services, an international company with majority stakes in two strategic businesses in the country. Blueberry is an offshore holding company that owns Celsys and Peak Mine for $5,45-million (about R37-million).
Blueberry owns Peak Mine, which in turn holds 60% of Celsys, a communications company listed on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange. Celsys wholly owns Gardoserve, a private industrial chemical manufacturer and distributor that trades as Millpal.
The Financial Gazette commented: “Especially for a company still sticking to a low name like Lonrho — the last part is short for Rhodesia — investing in Zimbabwe during unstable times is audacious.
“But so was the strategy of Tiny Rowland, the ‘unacceptable face of capitalism’, who once led Lonrho, befriending everyone during the liberation war to emerge at independence with vast assets extending from estates to car dealerships and mines.”
Just as intriguing was the Zimbabwean government buyout last month of multinational Heinz’s 49% stake in Olivine for about $7-million (about R48-million). The parastatal Cotton Company of Zimbabwe already held 51%, so it could not be for reasons of empowerment.
Heinz was one of the first foreign investors to put money into Zimbabwe in the days when President Robert Mugabe’s Marxist rhetoric would have indicated this was a bad move. The investment was criticised in Zimbabwe at the time as selling out to capitalism and must have been seen as a gamble by Heinz’s shareholders.
Undeterred, Heinz went ahead in 1982, investing $13-million (equivalent to $28-million or R190-million in today’s money) to buy 49% of Olivine in 1982.
Did Heinz leave voluntarily or was it pushed to leave, or was it a bit of both? One doesn’t know how much Heinz repatriated in dividends over the years, but just to break even on its original purchase price Heinz should have been paid four times as much.
Heinz could not have been happy with the effect of price controls imposed by the Zimbabwe government and the artificially high rate of exchange. In July, Mugabe reportedly threatened to nationalise manufacturers that stop producing basic commodities, such as cooking oil, because of price controls.
Those investing in Zimbabwe now are either getting bargain-basement prices or are doing so in expectation of profiting from a return to normality fairly soon. Let’s hope they are right.