Revenues and ProfitsComparing the size of the four largest players, their revenue and profits (in same currency):
Linde's profits are for the Gas Division segment only (probably excluding admin costs), which is why they are so high. Ignore them.
Air Liquide is by far the largest, in terms of revenue and profit.
Praxair is far more profitable, with a 20% operating margin in 2012 vs a 14% margin for Air Liquide. Praxair has also grown profits a lot faster over the 8 years: up 140% vs 87% for Air Liquide.
Their profits are not cyclical, profits barely dipped for Air Liquide and Praxair in 08/09.
A note that profit margins (i.e.: percentage of revenue) cannot be used to spot trends over time in this industry, due to indexing to fluctuating energy prices (e.g.: increased electricity price by $X --> increased end price by $X --> same profit, but reduced profit margin).
Geographic RegionsPraxair is mostly in America:
Air Liquide is mostly in Europe:
(North + South)
|AsiaPac||Middle East/Africa||Others (non-gas)|
AirProducts only gave revenue, not profit breakdown:
If you think that US or Mexican manufacturing will boom, Praxair would be a good play on this.
SegmentsThe companies have similar numbers when broken down for delivery mechanism:
- Large Industries 25%, Merchant (liquid) 31%, Cylinder 29%, Others 15%.
- Most Electronics business would be under "Large Industries". Healthcare is probably under "Cylinder".
- Large Industries 33%, Industrial Merchant (both liquid and cylinder): 34% , Healthcare 16%, Electronics 8%, Other 9%
- Large Industries 33%, Industrial Merchant (both liquid and cylinder): 38%, Electronics 25%
Balance SheetThis is a capital intensive business. All 3 companies have quite high debt of 3-5 years earnings:
|Company||2012 Long |
|2012 PBT||Number of times 2012 earnings to pay off liabilities|
|Praxair||8.7b USD||2.3bUSD||3.1 times|
|Air Liquide||9b Euros||2.1b Euro||4.2 times|
|Air Products||7.2b USD||1.48b USD||4.8 times|
Long term debt is mostly financed by 3-10 year notes/bonds. The repayments are spread out into the future: 10 years for Air Liquide (footnote 25.1) and Air Products (footnote 14), and at least 5 years for Praxair (footnote 11). Given the stable nature of the industry, this is sustainable - debt is not a problem.
All companies have minimal operating leases and contingent liabilities (mostly guarantees, warranties or legal action). Praxair is contesting a USD 830m fine from Brazil's CADE for anti-competitive behavior (5 companies were fined).
All 3 companies have underfunded pension plans. This current underfunding is recognized (i.e.: will not have make provisions in future year's earnings). However the companies differ widely in their assumptions.
Praxair's pension scheme is only slightly underfunded (~700m), but their assumptions seem aggressive:
- Expected return on US assets - the majority of the plan - is 8.25%. A lot higher than discount rate (4.7-5.4%).
- 60+ percent of the investments are in stock (target 60-80%).
- Their expected return on European assets is 4.4% vs a discount rate of 3.2%. In 2011, Eurpoean expected-ROA was actually less than the discount rate! Mostly invested in bonds and real-estate.
- They are still aggressive in the US (which forms about 30% of their obligations): 8% expected-return vs 3.8% discount rate. 53% is invested in shares.
Cash FlowsFor all 3 companies, working capital is minimal. Cash flow from operations is almost equal income plus depreciation.
Air Liquide and Praxair both generate steadily increasing earnings and CFO, even during the 08/09 recession, as expected when for a business operating on long term 10-15 year contracts. The green bar shows steadily increasing Cash Flow from Operations. However, Cash Flow from Operations (i.e.: spending on Capex) varies a lot, year by year - see the yellow bar. Sometimes it is due to large acquisitions (annotated). We cannot tell how much of this spending is to replace old capacity and how is to add new capacity:
In the ten years from 2002 to 2012, Praxair has spent 80% of its CFO in CFI, while Air Liquide has spent 90%. Combined with Praxair's greater operating margins, this makes them a better user of capital. Praxair's earnings increasing more than 3X over this period, while Air Liquide increased less than 2X.
Capex and AcquisitionsSince capex is the only varying quantity, lets look at it in more detail.
Praxair had high capex in 2011 and 2012, mostly buying small packaged gas companies - hard to tell as they do not give details and financial terms are not disclosed in their press releases. In 2013, they spent 1.1b buying NuCo2, a provider of beverage carbonation. At 9.6X EBITA, management admitted the acquisition is "dilutive to our return on capital", but expect that to lessen over time. From their September Investor Day Conference, 2012 was the peak of the capex cycle:
"CapEx spend. We think going forward we'll be around $1.8 billion, plus or minus. That's about 13% of sales versus the, say, 20% of sales that we had in 2012, where we were at the top of the CapEx cycle.
I've included 1% for acquisitions. We have a strategy to consolidate the packaged gas industry in the United States. So we're going to be spending some money towards that, call it $100 million to $200 million per year. Nothing on the order of NuCO2. I think it could be a decade before we do anything of that size. But this is our plan."
Air Liquide expects more than 2bn capex in 2013. They will probably spend 2bn (plus acquisitions) for the next 3 years to 2015.
SummaryPraxair would be my first choice - with higher profit margin, it has been able to use less capital to grow faster. Would still consider buying Air Liquide - they have a stable business with barriers to entry, and would provide some diversification as the operate in different parts of the world.
Even though revenues and profits for these companies are not cyclical, the stock price is. Wait for a correction/crash to buy. Anyway, valuations are too high to buy now.