Last month, this column questioned whether the slow rise in cement offtake was an indicator that there is revival in construction demand in the country, and while steel production is not completely corroborating it, it is also not explicitly refuting the proposition; it is just raising more questions. In the first three months of FY24, cumulative dispatches for cement demonstrate an impressive growth of 23 percent (according to the cement association); where local markets demand grew 18 percent compared to 1QFY23. Steel production (according to the LSM) in the first two months which is the latest data made available for large scale manufacturing is down from last year by 6 percent vs. domestic cement production (also according to the LSM) in those two months (July and August) rising 31 percent. The behaviour of these two construction materials that are typically bought together seems at odds with itself, granted the caveat that a two-month comparison may not be the most telling.
This column wrote last time: “If cement demand is recovering, there are very few places these dispatches are heading—to ongoing funded large-scale construction projects like hydro power plants that can absorb the cost overrun to a greater ability than smaller projects could”. That is in fact correct. Construction demand is visible mostly amongst public-sector projects: flyovers, underpasses, rapid bus transit projects and hydropower plants funded under CPEC. The lower monthly cement to billet ratio (compared to FY20 and FY21 which was the peak of private sector construction) also suggests this to be true—infrastructure and especially hydro power projects consume more steel versus a typical housing project would.
Cement’s exciting turn around in production while steel showing not quite the similar vigour may be a quiet function of pricing. Since cement prices have been steadily increasing for the past two years, there is also no indication that prices would fall. This could have led to speculative buying in advance for projects. Steel pricing has also been erratic, whilst the industry faces a shortage of raw material due to the ongoing and only recently relaxed LC restrictions which has certainly led to muted production. While that is certainly true, another explanation is smuggling of steel through the porous borders. Estimates from industry sources suggest smuggling may be at 15 percent of the industry manufacturing capacity which is substantial. Unbridled flow of cheaper steel into the country naturally implies a decline in sales of domestic companies amid an already subdued and limited demand scenario.
There are now sources that suggest that the government is cracking down on illegal steel smuggling. Over the next few months, if curtailed, steel makers may start making more steel products for construction and perhaps match the slow recovery in cement (specially compared to last year’s dismal demand) that has taken place in at least the last outgoing quarter.
Comments
Comments are closed.