CF Industries Holdings, Inc. (CF) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Well, listen, thanks, everybody, for coming out this morning. Always good to get up like the ag space we got here, farmers wake early, so we're starting at 8. I just got to read a quick disclaimer. And then after that, we'll jump into some Q&A. We're very happy to welcome the CF team up here with us today. Again, it's a company I've known through, I guess, 25 years now. So a lot of change in that 25 years. So it's always a fun discussion. Ag is really close to my heart as I kind of grew around ag on a couple of farms. So it's an interesting space for me. But we're required to make certain disclosures and public appearances about Goldman Sachs relationships with companies that we discuss. The disclosures relate to investment banking relationships, compensation received and 1% or more ownership. We're prepared to read aloud disclosures for any issuer upon request. However, these disclosures are available on our most recent reports available to you as clients on our firm's portal. So anyway, with that, again, Martin, Bert, thanks so much for spending some time with us today.

Maybe start off. Let's just kind of level set 2025. When you look back, if you were on Jan 1, kind of what you expected this year versus what's played out, what ended up being better, what ended up being worse? And then kind of a follow-on from that, we'll go to how does that set us up for 2026 then?

I think the amazing thing about our space in fertilizer is that it's the surprises that come throughout the year and how do you manage for them and against them in your system. It's a global market. And so we're competing globally. We at CF are moving products globally. But you have to remember, most countries and most places that consume our products have one application per year. So you have in the North American market, April, May, June and in the South American market with 2 crops, a little more. And so you're always looking to where inventories are, production rates, how products are moving, how products are being priced. And I think the surprises of 2025 were -- the first one is the war. And so what that did to production. And so this was a supply -- a lack of supply-driven market and prices reflected that. So you took off uranium production due to weather, which is the cold weather and they generally use the gas for domestic consumption. And then the war probably took 2 million tons off the market. Same thing with Egypt, lack of gas from Israel from the lithium field. And so those 2 combined and then increased demand in India, which has been tendering throughout the year, very positive demand in Brazil. And then obviously, high gas costs in Europe, limited production there, so more imports to Europe. I would say supply constrained, demand driven and that created a market where we hit almost $500 a ton in June for urea in the United States. And so that is, again -- we have to attract tons into the United States. I think the tariff disruptions of April 1 that were announced and basically the Trump administration tariff to everybody, except Russia, and those tons then it slowed down imports. Producers, let's take Algeria. Algeria, it's not my problem. It's the traders' problem. The traders is not my problem. It's the destination has to pay. The destination market being the United States, I don't want to pay for that. So we had a lack of supply coming in right during our peak months. I think that also had an impact on pricing. Where we are today as we're exiting 2025 is a more moderated market. So pricing has come off those highs for today and for urea at $360 plus or minus. And that -- I think supply has come back into the market. China was a surprise in the back half with exporting. India continuing to buy. So we're -- as we exit the year, we're at a balance to a still tight supply market with good demand dynamics heading into 2026.

Fair enough. And then maybe discuss how you view farmer economics. Obviously, we read a lot of stuff in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times about the stress that farmers are seeing. I'm a little bit of a skeptic. I mean it's not as good as it was 3 years ago, 4 years ago, but we still don't need to rule out Willie Nelson for farm aid yet at least. But do you think that's having an impact or will have an impact on your business next year that farmers are making less money than they were a couple of years ago? Are you seeing that?

So we track that. And we -- just like you, I come from a family -- farm family or family with a farm and ours in Colorado, I think yours is in Nebraska. I grew up in an ag community in Kansas, went to Kansas State, have contacts to kind of pressure test. Where are you? What's going on? What are the drivers? We talked about the corn-soybean ratio, what crops should be planted and as well as my contacts in the ag space with ADMs, cargoes and those folks. So I think it has been challenged. And you're right, we had some very good years earlier, 2022, 2023 and a more challenged year on the revenue side. What people don't remember or don't calculate is the revenue guarantee programs because of the crop insurance. And so with the price that was set at $470 with good yields, you're going to have -- you're going to cash flow okay, especially in the I states, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa and Nebraska, we'll call an I state. But we've had -- and if you look at the yields this year in the dry land areas of North Dakota, South Dakota, that trend yield is 188 million. That tells you that the more challenged areas had higher yields. So again, more revenue. I think the issues with soybeans and the exports to China or lack thereof, where it's a challenge of movement, and that then hit pricing. We're starting to see some escalation in pricing that will positively impact the farm center. As we look to 2026, I still say corn is the favorite product to plant. We have a good -- with the feed ration what's going on in the protein sector with beef, pork and poultry, we have a very good demand base there that will consume a good portion. Then the ethanol business, I think that's a little bit more challenged with petroleum at $60, but it's still -- we've got a good demand base just based on regulated demand. And then it's the exports of corn that don't go to China, they go to Mexico and other places. So we have -- I would say 98 million acres of corn that were planted in 2025, fantastic. People don't understand how much that -- how many acres that is. We'll probably be down to 92 million, 93 million, but still good for 2026.

Okay. And that drop of -- let's say, it's 5 million, 98 million to 93 million, just for round number 5 million. How big of an impact does that have on your business on AN consumption in the U.S., because there's a couple of ways to look at it. You had such a huge crop this year, you've mined a lot of AN from the soil this year. So maybe a 2-part question. So how are you seeing the fall application season progress in the U.S.? And then what do you think that does to AN demand next year, let's say, 5 million less acres of corn maybe going to soy?

So how we look at it because we're a supplier of the major AN products, ammonia, urea and UAN. Urea and UAN are applied in the spring, ammonia can be applied in the fall and the spring. And so we have a fall -- like you talk about a fall season that is only in November. Ambient temperature has to hit 50 degrees, soil temperature has to hit with good soil and moisture. We had a very good -- and this is a nice indication for 2026. We had a very good fall application season, could have been even better, but it was limited by weather. This -- you're not seeing in New York like we're seeing in Chicago, but the 8 inches of snow we got right at Thanksgiving and the cold weather, that just absolutely stops it. And so -- but inventories are low. The trend in what this to me signifies is healthy corn acres again. We could have sold more. We'll have to push that to spring, and that will be a March, April application period for ammonia.

Okay. And then do you -- but if you've got fewer acres theoretically next year, does that hit demand next year enough that it's a speed bump for you or you don't think you'll feel it much at all?

I think it's a speed bump. When you -- let's call it, 5 million to 6 million acres. And in terms of pounds per acre and you calculate that out, you'll see additional wheat acres. That will take some AN demand and probably other products will take -- the land won't be fallow. And so if it does go to soybeans, you'll have more phosphate and potash, not as -- probably not any nitrogen on that, but for CF who has the ability to store, to export, to move it and we have these long-standing relationships with our customers, we feel very good about our position going into 2026.

Okay. And what about when you look at the different inventory levels throughout the channel, the different AN products? How do those sit today versus maybe a year ago or kind of the average in the last several 3 or 4 years?

The interesting thing about inventory is, again, the psychological position of a buyer of what is he or she comfortable handling, carrying because there's a cost. There's a cash cost, there's a market risk cost. And so we check that globally. We have channel checks in Brazil. We have channel checks in India. We have channel checks in China. Just to see where are we. Europe, we produce in the U.K. And coming out, the fertilizer year is July through June. So coming 2025, July was really globally, again, exacerbated by the factors I articulated in the first question of low production and low inventories, high prices. People don't want to carry. So we had low carry-ins to this year and then lost some production on our own in some of our producer friends in the United States. So we believe inventory is low at the retail sector as well as the producer sector. And this is -- a lot of conversations are coming from our customers, and we've tracked them. Probably at this point, I would say they're 30% to 50% bought for spring, where normally they're 70% bought. So a lot of catch-up needs to take place. And I think this is a good market and good price structure for them to do that.

Fair. And then you've mentioned a few hiccups that the industry has had this year. Again, you could throw in Trinidad, some others. How do you track that? I guess some people would talk about kind of unplanned outages. When you look at that this year versus a normal year, how much bigger was the supply disruption, the unexpected supply disruption this year? And when you look at those different issues, is it likely that next year continues to be a bigger-than-average unplanned supply disruption? Or when you look at those, most of them kind of onetime things, you replace a valve, whatever it is, and now you're off to the races again. And so you actually might have more supply next year relative to that?

Yes. I think that's a hard one to project, but it's an easy one to look back on. And so when you look back on Saudi Arabia, for example, Maaden being down for, I think, 6 months. And the lack of supply from the new production that has not come from Gulf Coast and Woodside that has been projected, projected, projected and it hasn't come. We had some disruptions in production. And then you're right, Trinidad with gas is a reality. Europe with gas cost is a reality. Nothing is operating in Brazil. They have several plants that are down and have been down for at least a couple -- a year or 2. And so you can go around the world, Bangladesh, another area that are challenged and then the expectation of additional supply from certain areas, again, back to the earlier comments, didn't come, makes it tight.

Okay. And then if let's say, Ukraine-Russia thing is resolved in some way, so the business can resume, what do you think that does to the global supply-demand balance for AN? How quickly will they be able to -- I don't know the extent of damage to the pipelines and some of the plants and stuff like that, but what's your view? How much do you expect to come out of that area, the Black Sea area incrementally if there is a solution?

So separating the 2, Russia has done a very good job. And one of our frustrations is how much Russian tonnage is coming to the United States. And we've talked about that many different times that we're not -- the one country we're not sanctioning or tariffing is Russia, confusing, but it's still coming. So the product is coming out. I think the Russian producers, EuroChem, Akron and EuroChem with the EU have done a very good job of creating options coming out of the Baltic with Ust-Luga, which is one of their ports and how they're bringing ammonia. They've also converted or upgraded more ammonia to urea. They've done a good job of investing. The Black Sea really hasn't opened up for exports. The Port of Taman that they've built to export is exposed today where product used to flow through Ukraine to us is shut down. And I don't know if that's going to come back. That was connected to Togliatti, one of the big operations in Russia. That will have to wait until peace is declared and some time is spent.

Sure. Okay. So I guess -- let's exclude that. But how do you see supply-demand next year versus this year, again, kind of across the different AN products? Do things get tighter? Do things get looser in your view? Kind of setting aside the unplanned stuff, but just the book numbers, how do you have that for next year?

So starting with the demand side of where we think demand will be, the stock-to-use ratios of feed grains and what's happening with consumption is positive. That's for protein, for just the movement of feed grains. I think the question on supply is, generally, we go through some weather issues in the Middle East and Iran is shutting down again for gas use for domestic consumption. I think we're seeing in Europe at $9 to $10 gas, not $20 gas, but I don't think that incentivizes production levels any higher than they were in 2025. I think Trinidad is still challenged. I would say more supply is available, but not -- we just looked at this internally, our agribusiness analytics group just looked at this week of those numbers and what is the -- when you look at the cost curve, what ton are you bidding in and at what cost level does that take? And that's what happened in 2025. And I think that probably moves a little bit to the left with more supply. And then the question is China. And we've been pretty consistent with China, has the capability and the kind of consistency of around 4 million tons. That's what happened in 2025. There's discussions that those tons will come out in Q2 of 2026, again, with the licensing or the approvals to export. And if that happens again, then there'll be better supply in Asia.

Okay. So you think it will be roughly the same tons, but a little bit bigger window for next year is how you would handicap China at this point?

Today.

Yes. Okay. Fair enough. And then when you look at the internal Chinese market, because, again, it seems like that's kind of what's driven their decision on how much to export. How do you see the internal supply-demand balance? Is that 4 million the right number to balance that? Or does that leave them either short or long internally in your view?

So it's a good -- I mean that's the opaque question of the day. So when you look at static capacity, which is public and the run rates, which are public and then the amazing thing to me in China is how much of that domestic demand for ag industry and whatever has increased. And so when you look at North America or it kind of goes China, India, North America in terms of overall consumption, India is about 39 million, 40 million tons probably today. China is over 60 million. North America of urea is like 15 million, 16 million. And so it's just a gigantic demand. And China has done a very good job, a centrally controlled country with a lot of power centralized. And if the goal was inexpensive urea for Chinese domestic consumption for Chinese farmers to stay on the farm, goal achieved. Do they care about the export market? I think there are some companies that were -- that build plants to export, and it sounds like they're allowing that to happen on a measured basis.

Okay. And then the Indian impact on AN this year is more positive than it's been in a while. I guess, looking back what do you attribute that to? Do you think that is something that now is sustainable kind of at these higher levels, more active levels of tenders? Or does that turn out to be kind of a onetime blip where they bounced up a little bit maybe to take care of a little bit of a deficit and now they call it even for a while until the farmers scream again?

So the level of imports did surprise the level of demand for the imported ton that I would have said 6 million tons, it's going to be 7 million, 8 million, 9 million tons, which is very positive to the market. And the way they have tendered at 1 million tons at a time to 2 million tons has been consistent. And we expect one more tender probably for January and then they go quiet until their fertilizer year starts in April. But continued demand, a little bit challenged on domestic production. And just the way they subsidize, you have a very consistent good growth of demand of nitrogen, especially against high-cost phosphate. So when you have a choice as a farmer in India, when you're going to buy the stuff that you know works and is reasonably priced.

Okay. And then just because it consumes ammonia, what are you hearing on what the North Africans want to do with DAP-MAP production over the next 3, 4, 5 years? Does that -- are they growing that where that becomes -- would that be a market for you? Or would you look at that as just sopping up a competitor's ton somewhere that gives you more play kind of with direct sales of ammonia?

So the Bakkens are a customer of ours. We do talk with them regularly. They're very good buyers. They're very good operators, and they are growing and their projected growth of investment and their rock situation, the phosphate rock reserves that they have should drive them. And with the pricing of phosphate today being on a historic basis, high. They have every incentive, and we believe they will continue to grow. And yes, we have conversations with them. We ship them one of our first cargoes of low-carbon ammonia. So they're testing how can they be more active in the low-carbon space, which enters new markets for them. So we're excited about what's happening in North Africa.

Yes. You mentioned low carbon, so maybe we can take just a couple of minutes and talk about your effort. So maybe writ large, how does CF approach the low-carbon ammonia market? What are you seeing as far as demand trends go there? Obviously, we know the capital you've kind of already FID, but how are you thinking about future projects or future capacity in this space?

So we're the company to do it. And when we identified this opportunity 4, 5 years ago and communicated that to our investor and customer community that there is a potential, one, because of the geology that's understood in North America; two, the price of natural gas and the capability to access low cost; three, we're the company that does this and operates well and can achieve the higher level of capacity and invest in and get it done on time, on budget. And so as we approach the market, communicated these -- our situation and the potential, the inbound requests from Asia, Korea, Japan, from Europe for CBAM and low carbon from Morocco for low-carbon products going to -- for phosphate and so -- and other markets. And so where we are, there are a lot of projects announced. I would say over 120 ammonia or low-carbon or hydrogen-focused projects, hardly any of them are going to be built, ours will. And we're already in process. And -- so we have been very active over these ensuing years of how do we aggregate demand. And so it's with the chemical companies in Europe, the fertilizer companies in Europe for low carbon focused on CBAM. That's going to happen. We already have contracts in place. And then it's the domestic market that we're working on in the ag value chain as well as our industrial customers. We have a fairly large industrial book. And then it's the contract commitments that we already have with our partners, JERA and Mitsui that will focus on Asia. So it's a multipronged effort to make sure that as we come on and that production comes on stream in 2029, that it's allocated, it's understood and it's moving, and we're aggregating value.

Okay. And maybe has the decision been made on the percentage of your Japanese partner in the plant? I know it's like by the end of the year, we're okay. But the goal is still hopefully by the end of the year that there's an announcement on that. Okay. All right. And I guess, obviously, you're still in communications. The great hope was that particularly in Asia, Korea, Japan, you would use a lot of ammonia kind of maybe coal -- burn it with coal and stuff like that. How are your customers seeing that market develop for them? Obviously, you've got your commitment on your tons, but if we're talking about something that can grow over 10 or 20 years, does it feel like that market is developing as you would have hoped? Or I think what a lot of investors worry about is with kind of Trump backpedaling on a lot of stuff here, that drags a lot of other countries backwards on kind of the carbon commitments. So just, I guess, as we're getting towards the end of the year, what are you seeing as far as the development of the low carbon market in Asia in particular for ammonia?

What I would say is 2 things. These plants are built and like Donaldsonville is almost 60 years old, the first plant, still operating and still doing great. These plants are long-lived and these oscillations that are political or geopolitical or economic or trade-related have a duration as well that are generally short term. And so we have a long-term trend of environmental and improved operations. We are believing in that as well as our partners are as well. And so we have conversations with other companies on future projects and future ideas. Again, I think North America is the place to invest, and we are the company that can do it, and we have the capability for space and future investments if those partners and rate of return are acceptable to what other options give us. But I do believe that these trends, I think marine is longer dated, but there's still a lot of work being done with the engines and investments. Hydrogen, there's still a lot of conversations going on, but probably a little longer dated, but co-combustion is happening.

Yes. Okay. Fair enough. And just because you mentioned marine, to me, it's always kind of interest. Does ammonia win, does methanol win, does hydrogen win? When you look over this year, has there been any change between the competitiveness of those 3 that would move one or the other further? I mean there's been no technological breakthroughs. But I mean, as you look at that market, is one improved relative to the other 2?

I would say ammonia ships that are moving ammonia and have the capability generally to go LNG or ammonia, that's an easy growth platform. I think the questions around methanol, the questions around kind of the development of the bunkering system is still to come.

Okay. Fair enough. And then our internal view for natural gas is somewhat negative for you guys. I mean we have natural gas going up a decent amount next year relative to this year. And we actually then have globally traded natural gas prices coming down quite a lot that would make Europe fairly competitive where that ratio would come well under 2. When you think about the benefit that we've gotten in the U.S. from very high natural gas in Europe, what does that ratio have to get to that kind of unwinds in your mind? Where did -- I don't want to say where does Europe become competitive because we'll always be lower cost. But it's been pretty easy for us to ship stuff there relative to their cost and we can kind of land stuff cheaper than they can make it there. What's the ratio or what's the level that you would get worried about European gas prices?

So we'll just start with the premise that you're wrong. No, I think that these are -- it's -- there are so many factors in the energy construct of the world, whether the different forms of energy that are used, how those energies are processed and what is set up to process, load, ship, receive and consume. When you look at natural gas, the amazing thing to me, if you have tracked natural gas in North America from 1980 until 2010, it was about 40 to 45 Bcf a day. Fairly consistent. And then just the rocket ship up as the whole shale revolution and then the demand base for the same product. So today, we're at 108, 109 Bcf a day, amazing, what is happening, okay? So parallel to that is LNG has gone from 0 to 4 to 6 to 8 and just a few months ago, it's 15. Now it's 18 Bcf. So almost, let's say, 18% of the product is being shipped out. Where else in the world is that happening? Australia, Qatar, so there are different places where is it not happening? Well, Trinidad is going down because they don't have the resources. And so this -- the reserves of natural gas in the world where they are and where they need to be and then the demand for those molecules being AI and new generation that's taking place, not only in North America, but Europe and natural gas is going to be the replacement product longer term, I think, over renewables. And so the project -- this is my opinion, the projection of that compression of global gas to North American gas, I would say, you'll have still remaining -- if you have a compression and the marginal producer is unable to export, most of these people have contracts connected to their LNG operations that you're either going to see much cheaper gas in North America, okay, so maybe it compresses globally. But I don't think -- this is again, my belief, not to the level that Goldman Sachs has put out there. And again, it doesn't take, I don't think, in the full need of what that demand for the molecule is going to be.

Okay. And when you -- because one way I look at it, if you're a global potent, right, you could say, we're gas-rich, Europe's gas short. So we could send it over there as natural gas and produce ammonia there for their farmers or we can produce ammonia or urea or whatever derivative, ship it. And that's a cheaper way to contain basically the natural gas molecule to get it to Europe, right? It's just easier to ship urea than it is with all the compression. Have you done the work on like how much -- like do you look at it the same way and then say, okay, if it is cheaper to do it that way, that's kind of my worst-case buffer at least? It can't get worse than that. And when I do that, it's like $40 a ton on ammonia equivalent. I don't know if that sounds right to you or...

So we look at it -- we've done study after study of looking at -- so you have -- we start with the efficiency of the plants that exist and the age of the plants and the necessary investment. A turnaround is $60 million. If you're not making money, and this is our decision in the U.K. Those plants were older plants, inefficient plants, and we came up to a turnaround and your gas cost is here, your price -- your product pricing is here, that's going to be the question of longer-term investment in Europe and does it -- there was a good article in the Wall Street Journal about just the whole chemical side. Ammonia is in that mix. And so then you throw in carbon costs, we're going to have low carbon products, and we're going to be taking that to our U.K. operations, and we're going to have low-carbon ammonium nitrate that we produce in the U.K. So there -- I think there are a number of options that have to be looked at for us. We see 3 million or 4 million tons of ammonia still to come offline in Europe due to some of those factors. And then it's -- the cost curve works. And so you bid in the marginal ton when prices are high and that when prices move into a lower level, the high-cost producer shuts down. And today, those are in a few different countries. That's what balances supply and demand.

Fair. Okay. Maybe if we could jump -- we'll run out of time here. I'd love to ask questions for another hour. But capital allocation, I guess, what should investors expect from you guys over the next several years as far as where your capital is going to end up going? Obviously, we're making a lot of money today with where nitrogen prices are this year and what it looks like in the next year. So we're at a good point in the cycle. What do we end up doing with that cash in your view? Or what would you like to do with that cash?

I think you're going to see a continuation of the balanced and disciplined capital allocation we've had for the last 5, 10 and 15 years. We first look to invest in our existing assets and existing capacity in high-margin projects or to add capacity like purchasing the Waggaman ammonia facility or investing in new capacity additions like Blue Point and decarbonizing projects like our Donaldsonville CCS project. And then beyond that, we look to return capital to shareholders primarily through share buybacks. And if you look back over those 5-, 10- and 15-year periods, there's some pretty large share repurchase activity, the largest use of cash in those periods. And we repurchased 19% of the company with our last authorization. And since 2010, we've repurchased over half of the shares.

Yes, which is admirable. I'm a fan. But I guess when you look back, well, a couple of things, do you think the fertilizer industry has the right structure right now, both kind of the Americas and then globally? And if you don't, would you guys be a participant in kind of reshaping that inorganically?

I think we always look at opportunities to add to our network. It is a global business, as Bert mentioned. And we've looked at all the assets that have pretty much ever been available globally. And it's hard to make things work outside of North America.

Okay.

I think it's an exciting time in our space. There's so many moving parts and dynamics and the things to pay attention to, not only as an investor, but as an operator and how we manage our cash and how we manage those investments and the things that we're doing with our cash and positioning ourselves for the future. The CF of today is amazing from where it was the CF of yesterday and how we are the market leader in so many ways of whether that's low carbon or in terms of our performance and free cash flow and what we do with that and how we are, I think, shareholder-friendly.

Okay. And the idea of maybe going away from nitrogen, is there anything that you guys would look at? Obviously, you've had a competitor that's done that historically when you look over the last 30 years, kind of put together all the nutrients gotten into retail. Some others do stuff around biologics because they feel like they got a connection to the farmer. When we look 5 or 10 years from now, is CF going to be just a nitrogen company like it's always been? Or is there a chance that there might be another leg in there?

Well, I would say, not just. Well, should I? I don't want to minimize it.

That's a phenomenal business.

And I think the way -- we are very good at what we do, very safe in how we operate. We have a great employee base. We're well positioned. And we sold off our phosphate business in 2014 to Mosaic. That was a very good decision because mine life was for us and them. And so I did retail in Brazil for 8 years. It's a tough business. We are very happy with our channel partners. The co-ops do a great job and they take care of the farmer in so many ways. And so we want to be a part of that, but that doesn't mean we need to be in that space.

Fair enough. Well, listen, thank you guys so much for coming and spend a little time with us today. Thanks, Bert. And thanks, Martin. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.