Fertilisers business

https://bit.ly/3qaS4OV Most gardeners should use a complete fertilizer with twice as much phosphorus as nitrogen or potassium. An example would be 10-20-10 or 12-24-12. These fertilizers usually are easy to find. Some soils contain enough potassium for good plant growth and don't need more. Skip to content Recommended Stocks Search Search... Home » Basic Concepts of Stock Analysis » Business Analysis » Industry Specific Analysis » How to do Business Analysis of Fertilizer Companies Published: 21-Aug-22 Modified: 21-Aug-22 1. Increasing regulations and tightening subsidy support 2. Other factors influencing the business performance of fertilizer companies 3. Summary The current article aims to highlight the key aspects of the business of fertilizer companies. After reading this article, an investor would understand the factors that impact the business of fertilizer companies and the characteristics that differentiate a fundamentally strong fertilizer company from a weak one. Types of fertilizers Fertilizers are classified based on the key nutrient that they contain: Nitrogenous (N), Phosphoric (P) and Potassic (K). There are simple fertilizers, which primarily contain one nutrient like Urea (nitrogenous), Single Super Phosphate (SSP, phosphoric) and Muriate of Potash (MoP, potassic). In addition, there are complex fertilizers, which contain more than one nutrient like diammonium phosphate (DAP) and nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium (NPK). From the perspective of understanding the industry, an investor may simply classify them into two groups. First is Nitrogenous fertilizers of which Urea is the most prominent and the second is Phosphoric & Potassic (P&K) fertilizers because these two groups of fertilizers have slightly different dynamics within the fertilizer industry. Urea is the most used fertilizer constituting about 55% of total fertilizer consumption. Ratings criteria for the fertiliser industry by CRISIL, February 2018, page 3: urea accounts for more than half (~55%) of the fertiliser consumption in India Let us now understand the business environment under which the fertilizer companies operate. Increasing regulations and tightening subsidy support The first aspect of the fertilizer industry that an investor should know about is regulations and subsidies. In fact, it seems that there is no existence of fertilizer industry without govt. support and control. Govt. influences every aspect of the industry including demand, supply, distribution, pricing, and supply of raw materials. The primary reason for such high govt. control is that fertilizers are sold to farmers at a significant discount to their actual market price. Urea is sold at a discount of about 70%-80% and Phosphoric & Potassic (P&K) fertilizers are sold at a discount of about 30%. This discount is reimbursed by the govt. to fertilizer companies in the form of subsidies. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, page 3: Urea: Subsidy as % of total realization = ~70-80% P&K: Subsidy as % of total realization = ~30% The huge amount of subsidy provided by the govt. for providing fertilizers at a cheaper price to farmers distorts the whole fertilizer market. Govt. provides such a high amount of subsidy on fertilizer with two primary objectives. The first is to ensure food supply to the population at a cheaper price and the second is to increase the income in the hands of the farmers who are also a large politically important segment. Every kilogram of fertilizer, which is produced puts a monetary burden on the govt. finances; therefore, govt. influences every aspect of the industry including supply of raw material, sale, distribution, operating efficiency etc. India has been a large consumer of fertilizers where almost always demand has exceeded supply. In addition, increased consumption of fertilizers has also increased the subsidy burden on the govt. Therefore, govt. has implemented different regulations for the fertilizer industry at different times based on its vision and objectives in this field like increasing production and reducing subsidy burden. In 1977, Retention Price Scheme (RPS) was introduced for the fertilizer industry, which was aimed at increasing fertilizer production within the country. Therefore, govt. promoted investments in the industry with an assured return to the entire fertilizer industry. Rating Criteria for the fertiliser industry by CRISIL, February 2021, page 13: Introduced in 1977, the RPS, with the objective of achieving self-sufficiency and providing adequate returns to fertiliser companies, has been primarily responsible for the growth in domestic fertiliser capacity and production. As fertilizers were sold at a discount/subsidised price to farmers; therefore, as the production of fertilizers increased, the subsidy burden on the govt. also increased. As a result, govt. gradually removed fertilizers from the RPS scheme. P&K fertilizers were taken out of RPS in 1992 and Urea was taken out in 2003. Rating Criteria for the fertiliser industry by CRISIL, February 2021, page 13: The commissioning of large capacities, persuaded by the promise of assured returns under RPS, and a marginal rise in farm-gate prices compared with production costs, however, resulted in a ballooning subsidy burden. Phosphatic and potassic fertiliser makers were governed by the Retention Price Scheme (RPS) till 1992, and urea players till March 2003. Later on govt. kept bringing different regulations with the twin objective of increasing fertilizer production in the country and controlling its subsidy burden. Further advised reading: How to analyse New Companies in Unknown Industries? a) P&K fertilizers: For P&K fertilizers, the govt. almost freed the retail prices and introduced nutrient-based subsidy (NBS), which provided these fertilizer companies with a fixed amount of subsidy while leaving retail prices to fluctuate in line with import parity prices. Rating Criteria for the fertiliser industry by CRISIL, February 2021, page 13: While retail prices of urea continue to be regulated, prices of non-urea fertilisers were deregulated in April 2010. Currently, non-urea fertilisers are governed by the nutrient based subsidy (NBS) scheme, introduced in 2010, wherein the subsidy component is fixed and domestic prices are allowed to vary in line with international prices. Therefore, with NBS, the govt. could put a limit on the subsidy that it would provide on the sale of P&K fertilizers. However, it could not free the retail price of Urea because it is the most used fertilizer and has a very high component of subsidy in its realization. Therefore, unlike P&K, where the subsidy amount is fixed and the retail price is variable, for Urea, the strategy has been to fix the retail price and let the subsidy amount be variable. Rating Criteria for the fertiliser industry by CRISIL, February 2021, page 14: Essentially, extant regulations fix the retail price of urea and subsidy is dependent on cost of production (which in turn would have commodity linkages). b) Urea: In the urea segment, the policy guarantees a minimum return on investment by fertilizer companies. Therefore, the aim of the govt. has been to force the companies to reduce their operating/production costs so that the govt. has to pay them a lower subsidy amount for the guaranteed return (a return on equity of 12%). Rating methodology – fertilizer companies by CARE, May 2020, page 1: Urea is a controlled fertilizer and is sold at a statutorily notified uniform sale price. This price is lower than the cost of production and the difference is reimbursed as subsidy to manufacturers by the government, enabling the manufacturers to earn a reasonable return. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, December 2016, page 3: This is to ensure, in principle, that a normative return (post tax 12% Return on Equity or RoE) on fixed costs is earned by the urea players. In addition, to reduce the imports and promote domestic production of urea, the govt. incentivizes domestic urea companies to produce even more than their reassessed capacity (RAC) by assuring to buy it at a predetermined pricing framework till the time such purchase price for the govt. does not exceed the import parity price. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, December 2016, page 3: As per the NUP-2015, units producing more than its re-assessed capacity will be entitled to get their respective variable cost and ~Rs. 2,300/MT…subject to a cap of the import parity price plus a weighted average of other incidental charges (transportation and handling charges, etc.), which the GoI incurs on imported urea on its own account (~$25/MT). Therefore, after urea was taken out of RPS in 2003, govt. implemented multiple stages of the new price scheme (NPS) and in 2015, it implemented New Urea Policy-2015 (NUP). This scheme has aimed to reduce the subsidy per unit of urea sold. The key strategy behind these regulations has been to force/incentivize the fertilizer companies to be more efficient and then take benefit of resultant savings to reduce the subsidy amount on Urea production. Rating Criteria for the fertiliser industry by CRISIL, February 2021, page 14: Urea pricing is governed under the new pricing scheme (NPS) from April 1, 2003…Pre-set energy consumption norms were specified…and capital costs were also reassessed. These resulted in a decline in industry profitability during the period. In May 2015, the government announced the New Urea Policy-2015 (NUP-2015)…with the objective of maximising indigenous urea production, promoting energy efficiency in urea production by changing the prescribed energy norms and rationalising subsidy burden on the government by mopping up energy savings by the industry. Fertilizer production is an energy and capital-intensive process; therefore, govt. primarily focuses on the energy efficiency of urea companies to reduce its subsidy costs. Rating methodology – fertilizer companies by CARE, May 2020, page 1: Fertilizer production is an energy and capital intensive process Previously, different urea manufacturing units used different raw materials to make urea like naphtha, coal, natural gas etc. To improve the production process, govt. mandated the use of natural gas for urea units. Rating methodology – fertilizer companies by CARE, May 2020, page 5: Government policies in the recent past have encouraged the use of gas as feedstock for the manufacture of urea. As India started producing natural gas domestically, it was priced cheaper than imported gas. As a result, companies that could get a large supply of domestic gas were in a beneficial position due to the lower cost of production than those companies using imported regasified liquid natural gas (RLNG). To provide a levelling field to all the urea producers, the govt. introduced a gas pooling mechanism and made the energy costs uniform across all urea producers irrespective of the fact whether they used cheaper domestic gas or costlier imported regasified liquid natural gas (RLNG). As a result, now, all the urea producers who are linked to the national gas grid get uniform gas pricing. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, pages 6-7: The GoI implemented gas pooling, for all the fertiliser units connected to the natural gas pipeline network, in July 2015 resulting in levelized gas cost for the entire fertiliser sector. For players which were earlier operating using domestic gas only witnessed an increase in their cost of production while players using R-LNG witnessed a decline in their cost of production In addition, the govt. classified urea producers into groups based on their energy efficiency. As almost all the producers use the same production processes; therefore, the energy efficiency primarily depends upon the vintage/age of the plant. Older plants using old processes are less efficient than newer plants using new processes. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, page 6: Energy consumption is a function of the vintage of the unit, process technology adopted, and maintenance practices followed. With very few process technology suppliers to choose from, the process technology differentiation has mainly been determined by the plant vintage. The Govt. has classified Urea producers into three groups based on energy efficiency (primarily vintage-based) and has set fixed energy norms for each group. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, page 7: all the urea units are classified under three categories with normative norm of 5.5 Gcal/MT, 6.0 Gcal/MT and 6.5 Gcal/MT Govt. provides a fixed reimbursement to companies in each of these groups. Therefore, those companies, which are more energy efficient within their group earn higher profitability and those that are energy inefficient, earn lower profitability. Rating methodology – fertilizer companies by CARE, May 2020, page 2: The companies whose energy efficiency is inferior to the pre-set energy norms of its respective group under NUP 2015 would have lower profitability on account of lower subsidy entitlement. As the govt. has specified fixed payments based on energy consumption benchmarks, all the companies try to be more energy efficient to increase their profitability. However, as the energy efficiency of many companies in the group increases, the govt. further tightens the energy consumption benchmarks and reduces the subsidy outgo. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, page 7: GoI has been progressively tightening the normative energy norms for the urea industry over the years. The tightening of the energy norms results in lower subsidy outgo for the GoI and improvement in the energy efficiency of the urea industry. Moreover, the govt. has been cutting down the subsidy burden even in the cases where companies have been producing urea more than their reassessed capacity (RAC). Originally, the companies producing more than RAC received their variable cost + ₹2,300 per MT and incidental charges. However, in recent times, it has been reduced to variable cost + ₹1,635 per MT and incidental charges. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, page 5: As per the NUP-2015, units producing more than their re-assessed capacity are entitled to get their respective variable cost and ~Rs. 1635/MT…subject to a cap on the import parity price plus a weighted average of other incidental charges As the retail price of urea is much less than the cost of production; therefore, there were instances of urea meant for farmers finding its way into factories as a raw material for producing other goods. This pilferage meant that the subsidy did not reach the intended beneficiary. As a result, the govt. started neem coating of urea, which made it unsuitable for industrial use. Rating Criteria for the fertiliser industry by CRISIL, February 2018, page 3: The proportion of urea in overall fertiliser consumption is expected to come down on account of government policies such as neem coating of urea (which improves absorption in to soil and prevents its diversion to other chemical industries by making it unfit for non-fertilising use), Therefore, from the above discussion, an investor would notice that in both the segments, urea as well as P&K fertilizers, the govt regulations are high due to significant subsidy contribution and in both the segments, the govt. aims to cut its subsidy burden, which reduces the profitability of fertilizer companies. In P&K, under a nutrient-based subsidy scheme, the govt. has already fixed its subsidy burden whereas letting the companies change the retail price in line with changing costs of production whereas in the urea segment, the govt. still decides the retail price and reimburses money to urea producers to ensure that they earn a reasonable return on their investment. However, over time, the govt. is forcing urea manufacturers to be more efficient and is using these efficiencies to reduce its subsidy burden. Further advised reading: How to do Business Analysis of a Company With this background in the fertilizer industry, let us understand the key business dynamics under which fertilizer companies operate. Other factors influencing the business performance of fertilizer companies 1) Very low pricing power: As the price of fertilizers directly affects the farmers and their income; therefore, govt. has hardly given fertilizer producers any power to earn large profits. In the case of urea, the govt. directly controls the retail price (farm-gate price) and gives the companies subsidy that determines their return on investment. Therefore, as discussed earlier, the only way for urea companies to increase their profitability is to be more efficient in their production. Moreover, as the urea industry becomes more efficient, the govt. reduces the subsidy payments, which in turn puts a check on the profitability of urea manufacturers. In fact, for urea manufacturing units the govt. has determined a range of returns on equity that companies can earn. If there are profits higher than this range, then govt. updates the policy and takes the benefits away. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, page 5: GoI introduced the New Urea Investment Policy-2012 (NIP-2012) which assured a floor and ceiling of post-tax RoE of 12% and 20% respectively through the policy measures. In the case of phosphoric and potassic (P&K) fertilizers, even though the prices were freed/deregulated in 2010; still, govt. interferes in the retail prices by controlling the selling price of fertilizers by public sector fertilizer producers. This, in turn, forces the private players to match the price offered by public sector companies. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, October 2019, page 7: Government intervention in the pricing decisions for a supposedly deregulated P&K market is a credit negative for the industry…For example, in July 2016, the Fertiliser Ministry, announced its decision to reduce the retail prices for P&K fertilisers, cutting prices through the public sector undertakings (PSUs) and suggested that the private players follow suit. Due to these price cuts, players suffered inventory losses as the high inventory in the system (with companies, distributors, dealer and retailer) aligned with the reduced prices. Even otherwise, despite deregulating the P&K prices, the govt. wants to ensure that P&K fertilizer producers charges prices within a reasonable range. To ensure it, govt. regularly audits their input costs. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, page 1: P&K segment was partially decontrolled during 2010, following which the players have been able to freely price such decontrolled fertilisers as per their cost structure and the demand-supply dynamics. However, the GoI still monitors the reasonableness of the retail prices by auditing the input costs. The control of govt. on the profitability of fertilizer companies is so much that in the past when some fertilizer companies earned outsized returns due to usage of domestic gas, then govt. stopped their subsidy payments and is looking for recovery of “undue benefits”. Rating methodology – fertilizer companies by CARE, May 2020, page 8: In some fertilizer units, the Government of India (GoI)…has issued office memorandum for recovery of ‘undue benefits’ accrued with use of domestic gas for production of P&K fertilizers and chemicals. GoI has withheld subsidy in such disputed matters. Therefore, fertilizer producers are not able to charge customers as per their will. The govt. continues to influence the pricing of fertilizers either directly or indirectly. Therefore, fertilizer companies have very low pricing power. To increase profitability, fertilizer companies sell nonregulated products like seeds and agrochemicals (pesticides) in their outlets. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, page 12: Companies can offer unregulated farm inputs like seeds, agrochemicals etc. along with fertilisers which enables them to realise higher profits. Players attempt to increase their profitability by providing other value-added products like customized fertilizers suited to local soil health. Rating methodology – fertilizer companies by CARE, May 2020, page 6: Companies offering customized fertilizers based on the type of soil and crop are expected to gain competitive advantage with increased focus on soil health report by the government. Due to the commoditised nature of fertilizer products, companies attempt to differentiate themselves by branding and offering other farm-related services, which build some competitive advantage by trying to generate some brand loyalty. Rating methodology – fertilizer companies by CARE, May 2020, page 7: Additionally, though the fertilizer business may be a commodity business, product differentiation, branding and provision of farm support services are expected to gain greater importance. Advised reading: How to do Financial Analysis of a Company 2) High capital intensity: Operations of fertilizer companies require high capital investment in both, working capital as well as fixed capital. The primary reason for high working capital is that receivables from the govt. in the form of subsidy for a major part of cash inflow for the companies and these subsidy payments are usually delayed. The key reason for delays in subsidy payments is overall inadequate subsidy budgets. In addition, the problem intensifies especially during the second half of the year when the annual subsidy budget is exhausted. Rating methodology – fertilizer companies by CARE, May 2020, page 8: Delays have been observed in subsidy payment to fertilizer companies on account of inadequate subsidy budget. The shortfall in subsidy budget usually affects the cash flow position of companies in second half of the financial year when the subsidy budget gets exhausted and thus companies have to resort to short-term borrowing to fund extended subsidy receivables. Recently, the initiation of direct benefit transfer (DBT) by the govt. has added to the problem of delays in the recovery of subsidy. Previously, companies became eligible for a subsidy when the fertilizer was produced and dispatched from the factory. However, now, under DBT, they become eligible for subsidy only after the fertilizer is purchased by the farmer. Therefore, the period between the dispatch of the fertilizer from the factory and the purchase by the farmer i.e. the duration spent by the fertilizer in the entire distribution channel is added to the estimation of subsidy entitlement, which increases the working capital requirements of the companies. Rating methodology – fertilizer companies by CARE, May 2020, page 4: The government has rolled out direct benefit transfer (DBT) for subsidy payment from February 2018 where in the subsidy would be transferred to the manufacturers after the fertilizer is sold to the farmer which is expected to increase the working capital intensity of the companies as under the earlier regime subsidy was largely linked to the point of dispatch, and under DBT, it is linked to the point of retail sales The working capital intensity of urea producers is higher because subsidy forms a higher portion (70%-80%) of total realization than 30% of total realization for P&K fertilizers. Rating methodology – fertilizer companies by CARE, May 2020, page 4: The urea manufacturing plants have higher working capital intensity than other decontrolled fertilizers since subsidy comprises higher portion of the sales price for urea. Nevertheless, companies get working capital borrowing from banks against subsidy receivables at low-interest rates because these are receivables from govt and in effect have a sovereign guarantee. Rating methodology – fertilizer companies by CARE, May 2020, page 9: Currently, the lending institutions have been funding subsidy receivables up to 240 to 360 days due its sovereign nature Still, delays in the recovery of subsidy receivables add to the costs of the company due to increased interest costs. Further advised reading: Receivable Days: A Complete Guide In FY2021, govt. cleared all the pending subsidy dues of fertilizer companies. However, it remains to be seen whether going ahead, companies will get prompt payments of subsidy receivables from govt. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, page 4: by the end of FY2021 the GoI cleared the subsidy backlog that had built-up over the years In addition to delays in subsidy payments, the fluctuations in the fertilizer demand due to uncertainty in monsoon performance also increase the working capital burden on the companies due to higher inventory requirements. Rating methodology – fertilizer companies by CARE, May 2020, page 7 This leads to higher fertilizer sales during the normal monsoon period while low sales during drought or low rainfall period. During the period of low rainfall, the fertilizer companies may be impacted in terms of increased channel inventory which may also impact its working capital borrowings and can also lead to increase in discounts and larger credit period to increase sales. Therefore, most fertilizer companies have a high working capital debt on their books. In the terms of the requirement for fixed capital also, the intensity of the fertilizer industry is high. Plants for the production of urea and DAP need a large amount of capital. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, page 1: urea and DAP plants are characterised by high capital intensity, while the NPK complexes and SSP plants are relatively less capital intensive. In addition, due to consistent pressure from the govt. on fertilizer companies to improve their operating efficiencies, they need to consistently make investments in more energy and cost-efficient equipment leading to consistent capital requirements. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, page 7: GoI has been progressively tightening the normative energy norms for the urea industry over the years. The tightening of the energy norms results in lower subsidy outgo for the GoI and improvement in the energy efficiency of the urea industry. However, to meet the lower energy norms, urea units have to incur capital investments Therefore, fertilizer companies need to invest a large amount of money in the business both in the fixed capital as well as working capital. Further advised reading: Asset Turnover Ratio: A Complete Guide for Investors Going ahead, an investor should keep a watch on the govt. policies about changes in the DBT. If the policy changes to direct transfer of subsidy to the accounts of a farmer like LPG, indicating that farmers purchase fertilizers by paying the full price to companies, then the subsidy receivables will decline sharply for companies releasing the money stuck in working capital. 3) Operating/cost efficiency is the key: India is a fertilizer deficit country; therefore, almost all the fertilizer companies are assured of the sale of whatever amount they produce. However, there is intense pressure on the companies to perform as efficiently as possible. In the case of urea, as govt provides the key raw material, natural gas to all the companies at a uniform price via a gas pooling mechanism; therefore, govt. provides a fixed reimbursement of their costs by grouping the companies into three groups based on energy efficiency. Within a group, a company is going to get a fixed reimbursement of variable costs irrespective of its actual operating efficiency. If a company is more cost-efficient, then it will earn a high profit whereas if a company is poor in cost-efficiency, then it may not earn any profit or become unviable. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, page 6: The feedstock cost for all the domestic urea players, which have gas pipeline connectivity, is uniform and is a pass-through to the GoI up to the normative energy norm. Profitability gets negatively impacted for the urea units having energy consumption higher than the normative energy norm while positively impacted for urea units with energy consumption below normative energy norms In the case of phosphoric & potassic (P&K) fertilizers, the retail prices are deregulated (market-determined) and the subsidy component is fixed. Therefore, companies, which are cost-efficient earn a higher profit. Rating methodology – fertilizer companies by CARE, May 2020, page 3: NBS regime has changed the structure from fixed MRP and variable subsidy to fixed subsidy and variable MRP. As a result, control over raw material prices such as phosphoric acid, rock phosphate, ammonia, sulphur and MOP and energy efficiency in conversion to finished goods is important to drive profitability. 3.1) Competition from imports: For urea manufacturers, govt provides assurance of purchasing fertilizers only up to the reassessed capacity (RAC) of a unit. The govt. would purchase any production beyond RAC only if it costs cheaper than the imports. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, page 5: While the urea production up to the re-assessed capacity (RAC) has an assured offtake under the urea policy, the profitability on the urea production beyond the RAC is a function of the prevailing international prices and the cost structure of the urea unit. Therefore, urea companies have to become more cost-efficient than imports, especially during periods of commodity price increases when it might become cheaper for the govt. to import urea than procure it from domestic companies producing above RAC. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, pages 5-6: The energy consumption of the urea units also determines the competitiveness of production beyond the re-assessed capacity against imported urea. Lower the energy consumption, the higher is the competitiveness against imports Effectively, the GoI is encouraging the domestic manufacture of urea until the time its subsidy outflow does not exceed its opportunity cost of importing urea. As P&K fertilizers are deregulated; therefore, whenever domestic market prices increase beyond imports, many traders and importers emerge as competitors as they can import P&K fertilizers from abroad and sell them profitably at the market price in the domestic market because for the subsidy, govt. treats both imported and domestically produced fertilizers as the same. Rating methodology – fertilizer companies by CARE, May 2020, page 5: The subsidy on imported fertilizers is similar to the subsidy on domestically produced fertilizers. Thus, the phosphatic fertilizer manufacturers have to efficiently control their cost of production since the imported fertilizers can be cheaper than the domestically manufactured fertilizers with easy access to lower-cost raw materials and higher plant efficiencies. Some de-controlled fertilizers also have the risk of becoming unviable if their IPP is cheaper than the price of domestically manufactured fertilizer. Therefore, imports, if cheaper than domestically produced fertilizers, affect the profitability of Indian fertilizer companies both in urea as well as P&K segments. Further advised reading: Operating Performance Analysis: A Simple & Complete Guide 4) Large-sized operations and economies of scale help: Large fertilizer plants gain cost efficiency from multiple aspects like operating leverage where the fixed costs of the plant are spread across a large volume and in turn, reduce the per-unit production costs. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, page 14: While subsidy under NPS is expected to be progressively tightened, players with low energy consumption levels, competitive cost structure and economies of scale are expected to fare better in the long term. A large scale of operations brings in other benefits as well like a higher bargaining power over their suppliers, which brings in cost savings in raw material procurement. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, December 2016, page 5: In case of P&K players, however, players with large requirement for raw materials have relatively better bargaining power and can save on some costs. Large companies are also able to enter into long-term contracts for raw materials with suppliers, which is essential in the case of phosphoric fertilizers where most of the raw material is imported. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, page 15: In the case of phosphatic fertilisers, the degree of import dependence is high with most raw materials such as phosphoric acid, rock phosphate, muriate of potash, sulphur and ammonia being imported…In such a scenario, players with assured long-term supply of raw materials at stable prices or with domestic facilities for phosphatic fertilisers tend to have stronger credit risk profiles. In the case of potassic fertilizers, most of the finished products are imported because India has very little domestic production of potassic fertilizers. In such cases also, large-scale importers/traders benefit as they can get a better price from their suppliers. Rating methodology – fertilizer companies by CARE, May 2020, page 1: Potassic fertilizers are not produced in India and the entire requirement of the same is imported. Even in the case of Urea, fertilizer manufacturers face a shortage of key raw materials like natural gas. Therefore, large-sized companies find it comparatively easier to have long-term supply tie-ups. Rating methodology – fertilizer companies by CARE, May 2020, page 5: Fertilizer units in the country today are faced with gas shortages and under such circumstances, CARE reviews the ability of the company to have long-term tie-ups for its gas requirements at competitive rates. Large-sized companies also benefit as their operations are spread over many geographies, which protects them from adverse agro-climatic events like a failed monsoon because the possibility of monsoon failure in all the geographies in one year is low. Rating Criteria for the fertiliser industry by CRISIL, February 2021, page 15: players that cater to a larger number of states would be relatively better placed as they would be less susceptible to uneven monsoon. Rating methodology – fertilizer companies by CARE, May 2020, page 7: Fertilizer companies with large and well-established distribution network would also be less susceptible to the regional demand-supply fluctuations. 5) Other cost efficiency measures: Being an energy-intensive industry, most of the time, energy costs gain the maximum importance in determining cost efficiencies of fertilizer companies However, other aspects of cost efficiency are also important like locational advantages of plants, backward integration etc. 5.1) Locational advantages: Fertilizer plants, which are located close to their customers are at an advantage because the transportation cost of finished fertilizers is higher than its raw materials. However, P&K plants, where imports are an important source of raw material/ready potassic fertilizers are established near the coast. Rating methodology – fertilizer companies by CARE, May 2020, page 6: The location of the units near major consumer markets augurs well as the cost of transporting the raw material is lower than that of the finished goods. An exception to it is the P&K fertilizer units which are usually located in coastal regions. 5.2) Backward integration: Efficiency improving measures like backward integration are very important for phosphoric fertilizers, which face a shortage of some raw materials even at global levels. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, page 7: Of the raw materials/ intermediates, phosphoric acid and rock phosphate are in short supply in the global market and hence durable tie-ups with producers in overseas countries could be a source of competitive advantage for the units Therefore, if any company is either able to secure supplies of phosphoric acid or is able to backwards integrate into the production of phosphoric acid from rock phosphate, then it gets a competitive advantage. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, page 8: ICRA also favourably factors in backward integration in the manufacturing of phosphoric acid and sulphuric acid. Since rock phosphate, which is a key raw material for manufacturing phosphoric acid, is available more easily compared to phosphoric acid, which has limited international suppliers, it enables the entity to produce phosphoric acid and achieve cost advantage over imported phosphoric acid. 5.3) Flexible manufacturing plants: In addition, companies with flexible manufacturing plants that can use easily switch between the basic raw material and intermediate products for making fertilizers are at an advantage because they can choose the most cost-effective starting material based on the prevailing pricing scenario. Rating Criteria for the fertiliser industry by CRISIL, February 2021, page 15: Additionally, players with flexible manufacturing facilities that enable them to shift between sourcing of intermediates and basic raw materials, depending on the cost economics, are usually able to minimise cost increases. Therefore, whether it is nitrogenous (urea) or P&K fertilizers, staying cost competitive is essential and companies must attempt to be as cost-efficient as possible to remain competitive. In fact, in the case of urea producers, in light of assured offtake and subsidies, any poor performance is always due to poor cost efficiency. Rating methodology – fertilizer companies by CARE, May 2020, page 5: The under-performance of the units would largely be a derivative of higher energy consumption than the normative parameters, lower capacity utilization and non-approval of any fixed cost by the regulator. Further advised reading: 3 Simple Ways to Assess “Margin of Safety”: The Cornerstone of Stock Investing 6) Risks: The fertilizer industry is currently facing risks from different aspects. Let us understand some of them. 6.1) Volatile raw material prices and forex risks: Raw material prices of all the fertilizers be it urea or P&K are imported whether directly or indirectly. P&K fertilizers are directly dependent on imports for their raw material whereas, for urea plants, the key raw material like natural gas is influenced by the international price of crude oil. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, page 7: The key raw materials, for manufacturing of complex fertilisers e.g. ammonia, phosphoric acid, rock phosphate, muriate of potash, sulphur, are largely imported. Although some players manufacture phosphoric acid and ammonia to meet their requirements partially while sulphur is available indigenously as well from oil refineries, the raw material to produce these products is also largely imported leading to indirect import dependence As a result, the raw material prices of fertilizer companies are impacted by both the commodity cycles and foreign exchange (forex) movements and are volatile. In the case of nitrogenous fertilizers (urea), the forex changes, as well as raw material price changes, are a pass-through to the govt. under variable costs. However, in the case of P&K fertilizers, as the amount of subsidy is fixed, any increase in raw material costs hurts their profit margins. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, page 7: Urea players are protected from foreign currency fluctuations due to the pass-through nature of the subsidy regime although it does impact the working capital requirements. However, P&K players are exposed to the currency risk as almost entire raw material is imported and in situations of steep currency depreciations, the industry may find it difficult to pass on the currency impact to the farmers. For urea plants, any increase in raw material costs is a pass-through to the govt. as it increases the amount of subsidy entitlement. However, subsidy recovery is usually delayed; therefore, it increases the working capital burden on the companies to fund the subsidy receivables by borrowings and increases the interest costs. Rating methodology – fertilizer companies by CARE, May 2020, pages 8-9: For urea units in circumstances where the feedstock prices are on an increasing trend, the working capital intensity stretches due to fixed farm gate price inducing pressure on liquidity, gearing and interest burden. In the case of P&K fertilizers, any increase in raw material costs, apart from hurting their profitability directly also intensifies the competition from imports. This is because any attempt by P&K fertilizer companies to increase prices to recover higher costs makes imported fertilizers cheaper. As a result, as discussed earlier, many importers and traders launch their products in the market at a cheaper price. As a result, especially in the case of P&K fertilizers, large raw-material-storage facilities and efficient handling operations become a key competitive advantage. Rating Criteria for the fertiliser industry by CRISIL, February 2021, page 15: The raw material handling facilities of the players and ability to store these are other key operating efficiency determinants, given that raw materials are imported and their prices are volatile. Further advised reading: Credit Rating Reports: A Complete Guide for Stock Investors 6.2) Environmental risks and organic farming: Manufacturing of urea is an environmentally sensitive process because of the usage of a large amount of natural gas, which is a petrochemical. As an alternative, govt. is planning to mandate the usage of green hydrogen for manufacturing urea; however, it would require additional investments by an already capital-intensive business. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, page 11: Fertiliser manufacturing, particularly urea, has a significant carbon footprint as natural gas is the key raw material…With the GoI exploring the passing of a mandate for the procurement of green hydrogen by refineries and fertiliser plants Excessive usage of fertilizers also has an impact on soil health, which in association with growing awareness against using the chemical for producing food is giving growing acceptance of organic foods, which are grown without the usage of pesticides and fertilizers. Currently, such foods are costly because the production yields of organic farming are lower. However, as newer innovations lead to improvements in the yields of organic food, which would reduce their premium pricing, they will gain more acceptance. It might have an impact on the demand for fertilizers by farmers. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, page 12: Changing consumer preference towards use of organically-grown products wherein no chemical fertilisers are used could pose a social risk for fertiliser demand. 6.3) Sharp regulatory changes with excesses and reversals: Like any highly regulated segment, the fertilizer industry is prone to regulatory flip-flops. Many times, regulations may turn out to be conducive to the industry and as a result, may not benefit the industry. Whereas the subsequent changes may lead to too much incentive that the govt. has to roll back the measures. The fertilizer industry has seen such reversals multiple times in the past and it may see it in the future as well. In the past when govt introduced Retention Price Scheme (RPS) in 1977 to increase fertilizer production to achieve self-sufficiency in the country, then the subsidy burden increased so much that it had to move P&K fertilizers out of it in 1992 to reduce the subsidy outgo. Thereafter, the prices of P&K fertilizers increased. However, urea was still under RPS making its price much cheaper than P&K fertilizers. As a result, farmers used too much urea and it created a nutritional imbalance. Rating Criteria for the fertiliser industry by CRISIL, February 2021, page 13: In the early to mid-1990s, demand for phosphatic fertilisers was considerably impacted following the decontrol (1992) and flip-flops in government policies, resulting in highly decontrolled farm gate prices as against urea, which was then governed by RPS and was, therefore, subsidised. High phosphatic fertiliser prices distorted the consumption patterns in the country in favour of nitrogenous fertilisers, thereby creating a nutrient imbalance. The use of urea by the farmers had exceeded too much from the advised benchmarks. Rating Criteria for the fertiliser industry by CRISIL, February 2018, page 3: The ideal nutrient composition, too, favours nitrogen, and hence, urea. The perfect NPK ratio of soil stands at 4:2:1. However, due to indiscriminate urea use, this ratio stood at 6.9:2.7:1 in fiscal 2016 Once the govt. started focusing on reducing the subsidies, then it could not timely revise its investment guidelines for the sector. Therefore, for a very long time, no new urea manufacturing capacity came up in the country, which led to a very sharp increase in imports of urea to meet the continuously increasing demand. Rating Criteria for the fertiliser industry by CRISIL, February 2021, page 14: On account of unfavourable investment policies, capacity additions were absent in the urea segment – leading to a surge in urea import (from 0.5 million tonne [MT] in fiscal 2000 to 6.9 MT in fiscal 2008). Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, page 5: domestic urea industry did not witness any capacity additions in the past two decades Therefore, the govt. revised its investment policy for the urea segment; however, the first policy in 2008 proved insufficient and did not get a good response. As a result, the govt. revised it in 2012 and this time, gave so many incentives that the investment proposal received could create an oversupply of urea in the country. Now, the govt. had to cut down on the incentives especially, the clause for an assured offtake of production. Rating Criteria for the fertiliser industry by CRISIL, February 2021, page 14: The government introduced the urea investment policy in 2008, which saw muted response as no assurance was provided for gas prices and returns were not linked to gas costs. This was addressed in the updated policy in 2012, which linked realisations to costs and assured minimum return on networth of 12% to the companies. This policy led to a rush of applications, which would have resulted in overcapacity in the industry. Consequently, the policy was modified to remove the assured offtake clause. Now, due to the removal of the assured offtake clause, the new urea plants are seeing sales risk because their production costs are anticipated to be higher than imports. Rating methodology – fertilisers by ICRA, March 2022, page 5: new urea plants being set up under New Urea Investment Policy-2012: these plants are exposed to offtake risk as well, given that the GoI replaced the assured offtake clause in the NIP-2012. Since the cost of procurement from these plants will be higher than the imported urea, these plants are exposed to the off-take risk. Therefore, an investor would appreciate that like any other highly regulated sector, the fertilizer industry is also exposed to the risks of regulations and incentives moving towards excesses in each direction like a pendulum. It has happened in the past and may happen in the future as well. Therefore, an investor should be cautious of these risks while assessing fertilizer companies. Summary Fertilizers are a very essential product to ensure food security as well as farm income. Therefore, govt. attempts to provide them below their cost price to farmers. It results in a huge subsidy outflow from the govt. to fertilizer manufacturers. As a result, the govt. control fertilizer industry heavily by regulations controlling almost all aspects like retail prices, raw material prices, operating efficiencies, production incentives etc. India is a fertilizer deficit country and almost the entire domestic production of fertilizers is consumed. However, the companies cannot take undue benefits from this assured demand. Govt. influences how much return these companies can make and if companies start making large profits, then govt. takes away these benefits by reducing the subsidy amount. In essence, the aim of govt. regulations is to increase fertilizer production in India and control its subsidy burden. As a result, over the years, the industry has been under continuous pressure to improve efficiencies and in turn, help govt. in reducing its subsidy burden. Fertilizer companies do not have any independent pricing power. Govt. influences retail prices either directly (urea) or indirectly (P&K fertilizers). Companies have to resort to selling nonregulated items like seeds, and pesticides (agrochemicals) in their outlets to increase profitability. The pressure on the companies to improve efficiency is immense because govt. frequently keeps tightening the efficiency norms, which in turn, reduces the profitability of inefficient firms. It requires fertilizer companies to invest money in more efficient equipment in an already capital-intensive industry. Even though govt. promises subsidy payments to ensure a reasonable return to fertilizer companies; however, subsidy payments are usually delayed putting pressure on their working capital. However, banks are ready to provide funding for these receivables considering that they have a sovereign guarantee. Fertilizer companies compete with each other on operating efficiency because govt. has made their input costs almost uniform by measures like gas pooling. More cost-efficient companies earn more profits than inefficient companies. Various efficiency measures like economies of scale, better raw material procurement, long-term sourcing contracts, backward integration, better storage and handling capacities, large distribution channel, geographic diversity, flexible manufacturing, locational advantages etc. are especially important for fertilizer companies. Competition for operating efficiency is not limited to domestic producers. If imports are more cost-efficient, then all fertilizer companies be it P&K or urea, suffer. Govt. buys urea above reassessed capacity only if it costs lower than imported urea. In P&K fertilizers, as imports become cheaper than domestic prices, traders and imports start selling products at a cheaper price. Therefore, attempts to control raw material prices and forex risks are important. Due to rising environmental awareness, the fertilizer industry faces risks from growing acceptance of organic food as well as a transition from natural gas to green hydrogen. Nevertheless, one of the biggest risks faced by the industry is regulatory flip-flops where frequently incentives and harsh measures go to extremes. Therefore, an investor should keep in mind these multiple aspects for fertilizer companies to understand the true picture of their business position. Continuously increasing regulatory environment with tightening subsidies Very low pricing power The utmost importance of cost efficiencies in business operations Benefits of large size and economies of scale Risk of volatile raw material prices and forex fluctuations Risks from green movements, organic foods Regulatory flip-flops We believe that if an investor analyses any fertilizer company by considering the above parameters, then she would be able to assess its business properly. To read about analysing the business of agrochemical (pesticide) companies an investor may read the following article: How to do Business Analysis of Agrochemical (Pesticide) Companies Regards, Dr Vijay Malik P.S. Subscribe to Dr Vijay Malik’s Recommended Stocks: Click here To learn stock investing by videos, you may subscribe to the Peaceful Investing – Workshop Videos To download our customized stock analysis excel template for analysing companies: Stock Analysis Excel Learn about our stock analysis approach in the e-book: “Peaceful Investing – A Simple Guide to Hassle-free Stock Investing” To learn how to do business analysis of companies: e-book: Business Analysis Guide To pre-register/express interest for a “Peaceful Investing” workshop in your city: Click here Disclaimer Registration status with SEBI: I am registered with SEBI as a research analyst. Details of financial interest in the Subject Company: I do not own stocks of the companies mentioned above in my portfolio at the date of writing this article. Tags: Business Analysis Prev Previous Article How to do Business Analysis of Agrochemical (Pesticide) Companies Next Article How to do Business Analysis of Hotels Next Related Posts: Steel Sector Business Analysis How to do Business Analysis of Steel Companies Wind Power Business Analysis How to do Business Analysis of Wind Power Plants Solar Power Plant Business Analysis How to do Business Analysis of Solar Power Plants Hotels Business Analysis Logo How to do Business Analysis of Hotels Sign up to get updates + Get 10 free e-books on Stock Analysis Email Enter your email address... Sign-up and Get e-books Dr Vijay Malik’s Recommended Stocks Follow My Portfolio Buy/sell recommendations for selected stocks with a crisp investment rationale We have selected these stocks after an in-depth financial, business, valuation, and management analysis Click here to Subscribe "Peaceful Investing": My Stock Investing Approach “Peaceful Investing” is the result of my experience of more than 15 years in stock markets. It aims to find such stocks, where after investing, an investor may sleep peacefully. If later on, the stock prices increase, then the investor is happy as she is now wealthier. If the stock prices decline, even then the investor is happy as she can now buy more quantity of the selected fundamentally good stocks. Peaceful Investing - Workshop Videos Watch now Learn Balance Sheet Analysis Video Peaceful Investing Workshop On Demand Play Video Please share your comments here: 1. IMPORTANT: You MUST do a search on Google and on our website to find answer to your query before writing it here. It will save your time as well as our time. 2. To use images in the comments, upload them on any image sharing website and then use the link in the comments. 3. All comments are moderated. Your comment will be visible after we approve/reply to it. Leave a Comment Name Name * Email Email * Notify me by email when the comment gets approved. Post Comment Learn Stock Analysis in Simple Steps 1. Get Ready for Starting Stock Investing: What I learnt from brief analysis of 2,800 Companies Getting the right perspective for stock investing Stock investing is an entrepreneurship How to choose the right approach for stock investing Why I left technical analysis and never returned to it Trading diary of value investor (Read my investing diary) Common Mistakes done by Investors and How to Avoid Them Investment Books For Beginners 2. Tools for Stock Investing: How to study annual report of a company How to understand quarterly results of companies How to understand credit rating reports How to shortlist companies for detailed analysis How to get the financial data of companies for analysis 3. How to do Financial Analysis: How to do financial analysis of any company How to understand the cash flow from operations (CFO) How Companies Manipulate Cash Flow from Operating Activities (CFO) How to understand capitalization of interest & other expenses How to identify accounting red flags How Companies Inflate their Profits How to understand fund flow analysis How to understand free cash flow 4. How to do Business Analysis: How to do business analysis of any company How to find margin of safety for any company How to find the self sustainable growth rate (SSGR) of any company How to assess the operating performance of any company 5. How to do Management Analysis​​: Why management analysis is the most important in stock investing? Simple steps to analyse management quality of any company How Promoters benefit themselves using Related Party Transactions How to Identify if Management is Misallocating Capital How Promoters use Loopholes to Inflate their Shareholding How to identify Promoters extracting Money via High Salaries How to know if Promoters are Losing Commitment to the Company Why We cannot always Trust What Management Claims How to understand warrants issued to promoters How to interpret pledging of shares by promoters 6. How to do Valuation Analysis: How to do valuation analysis of companies 3 Simple steps to decide the ideal PE ratio to pay for any company Hidden risk of investing in high PE stocks How to earn high return at a low risk 7. How to take Final Investment Decision: The final checklist for buying stocks Selecting Safe Stocks to Buy for Retail Investors 8. How to manage a Portfolio of Stocks: How many stocks to own in your portfolio How to monitor the stocks in the portfolio When to sell a stock Premium Services Dr Vijay Malik’s Recommended Stocks Peaceful Investing – Workshop Videos Stock Analysis Excel Template E-book: Peaceful Investing: A Simple Guide Upcoming Workshops Participants’ Feedback Preregister for any city Home Start Here All Articles Media Coverage About Us Contact Us FREE e-Books Follow us: Twitter Facebook Linkedin Rss Terms & Conditions | Investor Charter | Complaints Data Copyright © Dr Vijay Malik. All Rights Reserved