Umicore SA (UMI) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good morning, everyone. Before I comment on this morning's disappointing press release and before we engage in Q&A, I would like to start by briefly introducing myself before sharing some of my perspectives on the current events and my overall view on the company's foundations and directions for the future. As you know, I was appointed CEO last May 16th. You will understand that the current circumstances are far from what I would have hoped to address during our first exchanges. At the same time, this is the situation we now have in front of us and together with Wannes and the broader Umicore teams, we will diligently work, bring the necessary clarity and address with agility and determination the changes we are now going through. I've been with the company for almost 20 years now and have held for approximately 17 years several finance and business positions in the former Energy & Surface Technology business group, more particularly focusing on our cobalt and nickel activities, which are obviously closely connected to the overall battery ecosystem and our Battery Materials activity. The experience that I gained over these years will now help me significantly to shape our Battery Materials business going forward. In March 2021, I was appointed EVP of Catalysis, a world-class business. This gave me the opportunity to deeply understand another cornerstone of the company and bring this great business to new heights together with all the Catalysis colleagues. Let me now recap the main messages of this morning. Against the backdrop of a sharp slowdown in the growth of EV demand impacting the industry and you will have seen the numerous announcements in this respect, our customers' demand projections for our Battery Materials have steeply declined in recent weeks. Consequently, 2024 volumes for our battery materials could be equal or slightly lower than last year. In this context, we have to lower our 2024 guidance for Battery Materials and now expect adjusted EBITDA for this business to be around breakeven. This includes a positive one-off of roughly EUR 50 million. This compares to the initially expected adjusted EBITDA for the business group in the order of EUR 135 million. The main drivers for this updates are threefold. Firstly, the volumes from our legacy contracts are coming to an end faster than anticipated. Secondly, we see delay in the anticipated ramp-up of new contracts in Europe. And lastly, the volumes for a Chinese battery OEM are not materializing in 2024. We have started a process of reassessing our growth projections post 2024 in response to the slowdown and ongoing reviews of the investment plans by EV manufacturers. This will lead to a phasing of our CapEx in order to match the future growth pace of customer base. Clearly, we will continue to work closely with our existing and potential customers to create clarity in the coming months. In the meantime, we expect that our CapEx for 2024 will not exceed EUR 650 million. Together with my Management Board, we will speedily assess ways to adjust our cost structure going forward. I also would like to highlight that the 2024 performance of Umicore's Foundation businesses, Catalysis, Recycling and Specialty Materials continues to be robust and is overall in line with market expectations. These businesses once more confirm that ability to generate strong earnings, strong free cash flows and industry-leading returns. Bringing this all together, we now expect group adjusted EBITDA for the full year 2024 to be in a range of EUR 760 million to EUR 800 million. Now before passing to the Q&A, I still would like to share my views on Umicore in its entirety and with which mindset I will lead the company forward. At Umicore, we have built our businesses around 3 megatrends: resource scarcity, the growing need for advanced materials and the mobility transformation. So let me now talk a bit about these 3 trends and businesses. It is clear that electromobility is not just a short-term trend, it is a confirmed trajectory that is reshaping the automotive industry. At Umicore, we have recognized this transformative wave and we maintain a strong belief in the long-term growth practice of electrification, and we are also convinced that Umicore has its role to play. As with any industry transformation, the journey towards electromobility is and will not be linear. The current market changes bring it to sharp focus the importance of our extensive technology portfolio, allowing us to navigate the evolving mobility road map. Our expertise covers indeed all [ try streams ], be it hybrid, full EV, internal combustion or fuel cells. This breadth of technology resembles our adaptability and positions us as a true transformation partner for the automotive OEMs. Recycling is a core pillar in our value offer. It represents our commitment to sustainability and a circular economy. It's not just an addition. It is an integral part that completes our business model and it resonates with our core values and commitments to the environment. The Specialty Materials business group is equally at the heart of our striving for excellence. It feeds the ever increasing demand for advanced materials. These materials are not just based on precious and rare metals of which we have a deep understanding and with which we have a long familiarity. They are essential building blocks to elevate the quality of life for people everywhere. Catalysis, Recycling and Specialty Materials are the foundations of which Umicore stands today. They are not just the batch work of our cash flows and returns, but also repository of fast knowledge and experience. This underpins our ambition to replicate this success for our Battery Materials business. And let's now open the Q&A, please.[ id="-1" name="Operator" /> [Operator Instructions] We'll take our first question from Alex Stewart from Barclays.

Relatively simple question, I hope. During the last 6 months, the market was presented with Battery Materials 2.0 and we were assured that revenues were contracted and fixed and that the reason that you are able to give such detailed guidance so early in the year was that you had very clear visibility take-or-pay contracts, fixed pricing. We're not going to invest unless we have guaranteed demand for these products. So my question really is, what has changed? Was that wrong? Were actually these guarantees not as rigorous as you thought they were because the message that you've given this morning in the press release is radically different to the message that was given in the full year results? And I'm really curious to know whether the full year results was maybe -- or the message at the full year results was maybe a little generous or whether something ultimately has changed in the structure of these contracts? Any insight on that would be very useful.

Yes. Okay. Good. Let me speak to those points, and thank you for your question. So clearly, over the past weeks, we're starting to get signals from our customers and myself and then also the Battery Materials teams, therefore, started exchanging extensively with our customers to clarify the current situation. And in the past days, then unfortunately, it became clear net of volumes that we had anticipated, especially for the second half of the year of 2024 will not be materializing. Hence, we have to come out today. Now if you speak, there are 3 reasons, actually, why we have this volume drop as I also shared [Technical Difficulty].

Operator, could you close the line that is making noise, please?

Yes. So as I was saying, the lower volumes were mainly related to 3 key points. The legacy contracts phasing out more rapidly than expected. The China contract with a Chinese OEM will not materialize in 2024, and the [ repo ] of new contracts in Europe will be delayed. Now you was referring to the quality of our contracts. And at the same time, I have to say that indeed, our European contracts, they do have strong guardrails and take-or-pay provisions. Now these take-or-pay provisions are basically kicking in along the ramp-up of these contracts, and they have specific volume bands for any given year. Now as we are in the ramp-up, these guardrails are, let's say, at a lower threshold than before. However, in the next years, these volumes will start to increase and therefore, underpin basically the return of the investments that we have been making and are making in Europe. On the Chinese contract, I would also have to say that we have mentioned earlier that there are no guardrails on -- with this new local OEM. And therefore, of course, when these volumes do not materialize, we are exposed to that volume fluctuation.

We will take our next question from Chetan Udeshi from JPM.

I had a similar question, but more longer term. I think in the press release, Bart, you mentioned that you still think Umicore has the right to win in the Battery Materials space. And I mean, in the last 5 years, 4 years, we've just seen more disappointments, again today the update not really promising. I'm just curious, why do you think Umicore still has the right to win? Because you mentioned China contract, China actually is doing quite well on EV. So it's quite a bit surprising to me at least that the Chinese contracts is not -- or Chinese contract isn't ramping this year. But what gives you confidence that Umicore still has the right to win in this business? Because it just feels like the scale that Umicore has today is much lower than most of your global competitors and clearly, you can see from the profitability levels this year, you're talking about EBITDA loss, actually, if you strip out the one-off. So just curious, as you reassess the business, if you've already done that, what gives you confidence that we should still have Umicore as a key player in this business? And the second question I had was -- when you say the legacy contracts have completed or expired sooner than expected, isn't that a drag that we should have in mind also going into next year and the year after? Or was that already in your planning or not necessarily in your planning, but the previous planning that you guys have talked to us about for 2025 and '26, I think? And last question, in terms of CapEx phasing, up to EUR 650 million, should we expect at least some cuts to your CapEx for the next 3 years based on what you've announced today or is that too early to conclude?

Well, thank you, Chetan. And a very broad question. And of course, I understand all the questions that you're asking. And first of all, what I would like to start is that I recognize the disappointment, the disappointment for the markets, our shareholders, but also for us here at Umicore. So I really would like to point this forward. This is clearly disappointing. Now you will also appreciate that I'm here now a bit less than 4 weeks and we're in this full assessment of how our Battery Materials business would need to further develop and what the right composition could be and the right growth trajectory. And I'll come back to that later on. But now to the current situation, actually, we're falling a bit, I would say, between 2 chairs right now. On the one hand, as you mentioned yourself, we have the tail of these legacy contracts, we have a delay in that ramp up of our really strong underpinned contracts in Europe and does not say anything about the next years, of course, on the strength of these contracts going forward. But it faces us today, indeed, with a lower volume situation, while actually from a cost base, we were continuing to invest in technology, engineering, but also the general outbuild of the organization. And of course, all these elements combined volume being important and cost, indeed, that hits the bottom line hard, I cannot deny that, right? At the same time, I always have to say you were talking about China, for instance, you say, indeed, EVs in China are going well, where we also have to recognize that in the Chinese market, it is really LFP being the strong composition today and NMC is very challenging in the Chinese market and there, the competition is really strong. Now to the Chinese accounts. They have revised their forecast. And today, I cannot more share than that as such. Now I recognize, of course, that LFP is very strong in China. We also see some EV coming -- we also see some LFP coming to Europe. And despite all the recycling challenges and future costs that will come along with it, but that's the reality. At the same time, we have a very strong technology position on NMC. Our customers are also seeing different segments in the cars and applications that will require different technologies, and we will feel confident that there, we are in a very strong position. You've also seen the news probably this morning that governments are realizing that local supply chains are super important because the car industry for the Western markets, such as Europe and U.S. is critical. And therefore, EV production, battery production and therefore, also the upstream supply chain for battery materials will take ground in Europe. And there, we will start from a much stronger level playing field on which we feel that with our first footprint and our first strong contract, we are extremely well positioned to leverage that. Now regarding the CapEx, Wannes, maybe you could share some elements?

Yes. And also the question on legacy contracts as well.

Yes.

So maybe first talking about the legacy contracts. So we have highlighted that in '24, '24 being a transition year, where we have a combination of legacy contracts, but also new contracts kicking in, the new contracts in Europe and 1 particular contract in China. So with that ramp-up being delayed, the legacy contracts, of course, continue to be important. And this is also unfortunately against the backdrop of the overall demand where we see that the anticipated demand from those legacy contracts is weaker than what we planned for. Going forward, we continue to have some contribution from those legacy contracts throughout the next year -- I would say, next years, but that reduces over time. So the new contracts will gain in weight. Now looking at the CapEx phasing. Today, we have the necessary capacity to meet demand. So this is where we have decided to revise the CapEx downwards initially for this year, we had planned about somewhat more than EUR 800 million of CapEx. And we have plan to reduce it to not exceed EUR 650 million, so a significant CapEx cut for this year. And we are continuing to work together with our customers to get a more clear projection for the longer term, and this will help us in further revising and adjusting the CapEx need to the slower pace in the industry, I would say.

Yes, indeed, Wannes, I think that's exactly right. And you were referring indeed to how is the CapEx trajectory going to be? We have now to assess in the months what it will be, but giving the current slowdown of electrification, especially in Europe and also where we find ourselves today, I mean, it is fair to assume that the volume development and the top line revenue developments that we have shared under our RISE 2030 ambition will be lowered down going forward. And we'll get back to you, of course, in the next months while we have actually work through our plans, and I think we probably will have a CMD around year-end explain the overall group. So our solid foundation businesses, but also on Battery Materials, we'll come back to you. In the meanwhile, if we have relevant elements, of course, we will keep on informing you step by step as it is, of course, very important to the markets to have the right information. I also would like to point out that, of course, the strategic assessment or business model update that we're doing for Battery Materials will always be with a clear ambition of value creation, and we still see this as a real growth business for Umicore.

So Bart, can I confirm that you're not ruling out or you are essentially ruling out that Umicore will exit the Battery Materials business? That's not a scenario...

I would say today, we are fully committed to this business and we continue to develop indeed with that long-term value-creating mindset.

We will take our next question from Riya Kotecha from BofA.

I've got 3 questions, please. My first one is on the order book. Can you give us some color as to why some contracts have come to end faster than expected and others not materialized? Is this a cyclical problem with EV demand in the European market and maybe EU China tariffs or rather a technology problem with customers switching to different battery technologies in the midterm. And therefore, what gives you the confidence that this is a cyclical or 2024 problem versus a structural or a midterm problem as well? And related to that is my second question, which is what gives you the confidence that your most important customer, which is 60% of the order book, has volumes or orders that materialize in the midterm? And my third question is just a follow-up on the take-or-pay mechanism. To what extent are you able and willing to secure or enforce some of these binding contracts that were signed 2 or 3 years ago maybe when we weren't going through the cyclical phase in EV demand rather than give customers the flexibility to adopt the volumes that they need through the growing process and therefore, Umicore takes on some of the pain of those customers as they ramp up?

So thank you, Riya, and very clear questions. Now it's also again a very broad set of questions, so probably we could talk half an hour on this, but let me try to be concise on the most elements. Yes, right now, indeed, we do see volume impact in the slowdown of electrification in Europe. We also see EV car imports in Europe slowing down, and we see some stocks for batteries in the overall supply chain. So yes, definitely, there is an impact on volumes that is truly market related. And again, electromobility is a transformation, and it's never a straight line. And even in the next years, we will see some fluctuation going forward that is true for any major transformation in society. So far, it's clear. Now as mentioned before, I firmly believe that NMC has its right to play and will play a major role in the European and the North American markets, more so than in China, where LFP seems to be really ingrained, hence, that with the local supply chains, we have the stronger level playing field. At the same time, LFP is there, so I will not deny that and customers will ultimately decide what they use for certain segments and it's not for me to speak, of course, to the technology choices of our customers. Now if we then say what is the overall volume development of our customer portfolio and the battery makers with we've working, I mean, this is work now we have to do in the next month. That assessment is fully ongoing. And it would not be right for me to say what my assumptions are because, of course, this is up to our customers to shed some clarity on this. Now on the point of the take-or-pay and basically the strong contracts that we have. Yes, indeed, we are fully intending to leverage the strong contractual base that we have with our customers. At the same time, of course, it's not our ambition just to build empty capacity in order to be able to collect take-or-pay, that will not be fundamental. So we will continue to work with our customers, but we intend to leverage these strong clauses in our contracts.

That's really helpful. I've just got one follow-up, please, and that's more broadly on the Battery Materials asset base and the commitment of the business. In what case or scenario could you see that you're more focused on Western regions or the European region or the North American region versus potential to strategically exit other regions such as the China market, which actually has been underutilized since 2021, and as you said, is now predominantly LFP. So is that scenario something you would consider?

Well, I'm not going to, let's say, comment on specific outcomes of the assessment that I'm still doing today, of course, but we're looking at things holistically. Footprint consideration and CapEx phasing is an integral part of that. So once we have news on this, we'll come back to you and share that, of course, [ prompto ], I would say.

We will take our next question from Georgina Fraser from Goldman Sachs.

I've just got 2 questions. One of them is, could you help us out a little bit with how to think about the top line in Battery Materials. You did say volumes could be flat or slightly negative. Is there anything that you can tell us about price and mix? And if you could just confirm that the sales that you do have in Battery Materials are all legacy Battery Materials contracts, and there isn't something else that we're not aware of in there? And then the second question was, obviously, you focused today on Battery Materials and you've confirmed market expectations for the other divisions, but are you kind of seeing any difference in your expectations in the RISE plan for Catalysis on the back of the change in your Battery Materials expectations?

Yes. Wannes, maybe you take the first part, I'll go on the second part.

Yes. Sure. So talking about the top line for '24, well, basically, we anticipated a mix, I would say, the mix being those European contracts ramping up, the Chinese contract contributing and the legacy contracts. This is where having the Chinese contract not ramping up and having the European contracts where we are delivering, but at a slower pace than we anticipated, changes somewhat that mix. I think we gave at the start of the year revenue guidance for this year. For the businesses, we typically don't give revenue guidance. At the start of the year, we did an exception to set a reference for Battery Materials, but bear with us in July, we will be able to share more on that.

Yes. And of course, to your question on the Catalysis business group, I'm always extremely proud to talk about this group because I mean, you all know this is a fantastic business, and our colleagues have been working in a fantastic way to show the results that we are. So yes, I'm proud of that. Now it's clear that electrification if it would slow down, right, especially in Europe, then we can expect, of course, that there will be longer and more internal combustion engines to be sold. If we see more hybrids coming to the market, again, that would also be a positive for catalysts to produce and given our very strong position in the gasoline segment, it's fair to assume that indeed there would be an upside. I would like to ask for your patience as we do in the full assessment and of course, [indiscernible] around the end of the year, we will be sharing, of course, more of this information. We feel also on the Catalysis division, but I can confirm the fundamentals of this business remain very strong. Now something I would like to highlight as well is that of course, initially, I was expecting only to talk to the market on July 26 to give first indications. And this is not the nicest way to come out the first time, but I think you can realize now that we have also really been giving some of these first indications. We're talking about phasing up CapEx. We gave you an update that we're assessing our overall footprint. We also gave you the fact that we'll be shifting out our recycling plants that at the same time, we recognize certain technology trends that we see in LFP in China and in Europe. So -- and at the same time, we also recognize that we will realign our development and, therefore, also our cost base in line with the overall current market development. And therefore, we will also act swiftly and diligently. At the same time, we also confirmed that we keep underpinning our belief in this Battery Materials business as a great growth engine for Umicore with long-term value creation.

We will take our next question from Geoff Haire from UBS.

Can I just ask a couple of questions? First of all, just on a housekeeping point. You do still intend to split out the RBM business with the first half results? And then the second question I had was that if I remember rightly and my memory may be hazy, but back at the end of 2021, when we had the [indiscernible] warning from the [indiscernible], the comment was that there was a number of high nickel contracts that would come in play in 2024, and that's why you are confident in continuing to ramp up the Polish plant. What has happened to those high nickel contracts because this should be the year that these were coming in?

Yes. Yes. Wannes, why don't you take first part.

I just got one other question. On the CapEx phasing, particularly the commitments of volumes that you've made to VW, what flexibility do you have to significantly reduce the CapEx commitments you've made, particularly to the JV going forward?

Okay. Sounds good. I suggest that maybe Wannes you take the first, and I'll take the 2 other ones on the high nickel and the volumes for the joint venture.

Well, it can be brief on the first one, in a sense that, yes, we will proceed with reporting battery and fuel separately against the Specialty Materials. So that is something that we will do in July, so basically for the first half of this year.

Yes. And referring to the high nickel, I mean these are indeed the chemistries that we are qualifying and ramping up in our Poland facilities. That is true. And high nickel, I would say is definitely a segment which is out there. At the same time now, we also see a very strong surging back, let's say, to the mid-nickel high-voltage segments and which we, of course, also have strong technology and in which we are already a believer quite some time ago. Now with coming to the joint venture and the volume flex, I mean we are committed to the PowerCo joint venture -- I mean the IONWAY joint venture with PowerCo, I should say. I mean these investments come in waves. And the first wave CapEx are ongoing, and we are there really on track. So yes, we will continue to commit to this joint venture. Yes, the contract that we have with PowerCo will and is value accretive. And of course, if we see further business potential, we will stick to it. And I can also say more in general, actually, for all our customers with the capacity we have in place and the contracts and volume development that we see we can supply our customers and we'll commit to make sure our customers have the volumes which they require.

We will take our next questions from Sebastian Bray from Berenberg.

Can I ask about the Canada plant that Umicore had planned? One of the events that shareholders responded to quite positively last year was the news that the Canadian government would make $0.5 billion available for construction of this facility. I can't imagine the government would be delighted if Umicore wins this or actually we can't do this. How exactly is Umicore locked in to building this plant now legally because of the provision of the grant? Is that delayable CapEx given that the U.S. market and North American market appears to be further behind the others? My second question is on Stellantis actually or the ACC alliance that was the second big component of the Umicore pipeline highlighted in 2022. Bart, I appreciate it's early days, and you may not yet be able to comment on this, but as part of the revisions to the battery facilities that ACC was supposed to construct in Kaiserslautern and in Italy, there -- it was rumored that Stellantis was considering switching from NMC to LFP for some of its products. Are the statements related -- that Umicore has made in the past related to the pipeline from ACC still valid or is that the subject of renegotiation?

Okay. No, very clear, very clear, very interesting questions where I gladly speak to. Now of course, relating our overall footprint, you will understand that, as you mentioned, it's very early days, I mean, I'm working with the teams, clarifying, of course, the overall volume development that we see with our customers and footprint is one of the considerations we're looking at, but it's way too early to make any conclusions on this right now. And you will appreciate that this is not yet my time to comment on this so far. At the same time, we are phasing our CapEx, and we will only spend EUR 650 million this year, so in 2024. Relating to Stellantis and ACC, as you mentioned yourself, there's some speculation. So let me not join the speculative situation. This is really a discussion to be have, of course, with Stellantis and ACC. And of course, when things would become clear, we will further engage with our customers and look at the overall volume development. At the same time, I would like to reiterate one more time, we have a solid contract with ACC, and we will leverage the full effect of our take-or-pay clauses, if need be. Of course, this is the last resort you want to do because, of course, they want to do volume, but if it's like this and volumes are not there, that's why these clauses are in the contract.

That's helpful, Bart. If I may press you on the comments that you made earlier to Chetan about this being a core part of the Umicore business, just referring to rechargeable battery materials. There are different definitions of core. And what I'm getting at here is you can be a co-holder of something which you only have a 70% or 80% stake in or you can be a co-holder in [indiscernible] giving up any of the business. Is potentially seeking a strategic partner, whereby Umicore would still fully consolidate the segment revenues and the profitability but someone to share the burden on CapEx and potentially the upside of things can be turned around on the menu? Or is it definitely staying 100% Umicore?

Yes. Again, I mean, too early to comment on this, but let me give you maybe some guiding principles that I'm using right now during my assessment. And the first and foremost guiding principle is, first of all, we believe it's still a growth business. It has to be value creative, and we believe it's going to be value creative, right? At the same time, there's several elements that I take into account when looking my assessment and when actually building out our business going forward. First of all, customer intimacy, partner intimacy really being close to the value chain actors of customers but also upstream, I mean this is really important for me. I've been -- I spent lots of time in the raw material space, relationships are key, and that's where you will also see investing a big part of my time. We will continue to focus on technology leadership and continue to invest because NMC has every right to play and will be a part of the answer of this big growing markets. You will also hear me talk about agility, and we'll have to see how we can actually adjust our business model to weather these fluctuations, which still will be there in the future anyway because it's a transformation, remember that, right? So we'll have to be able to deal with those. That is very important. And now I come to your point, agility also comes with footprint and cooperation. And I'm currently working on the footprint picture with the teams, and I'm open to building the right partnerships along the value chain if that unlocks more value than if we [ would things ] do alone. So I'm open to partnerships. That's what I've done in the past as well in different businesses. What we'll also focus on is strengthen our relative cost position. That will be key for the industry, and that will be another strong trend. That means it's not only about our costs, we will work with our customers, of course, to bring the dollar per kilowatt hour down by introducing new chemistries and many other ways actually to bring that cost element down. But equally important and maybe not something that you would expect to talk about today, which is a core in every strategy and successful organization format that I consider is culture. So we're going to strengthen our culture where everybody is mentally and physically safe because it all centers around open dialogue, transparency; however, combined with self leadership and accountability at all levels in the organization because culture as you're breeding ground for success and excellent group performance in the long term. So you'll also be hearing me talk about culture going forward.

This was the last question for today. I will now hand it over to Mr. Sap for closing remarks. Please go ahead, sir.

So many things have been said, and I think the questions, and I think the answers were pretty broad and quite wider than a typically, let's say, outlook update. And I did appreciate the opportunity to discuss this. . First of all, I would like to still say 3 things. I clearly would like to recognize that the news we bring today is disappointing, disappointing to the markets, disappointing to our shareholders and disappointing for everybody here at Umicore. Secondly, our foundation business is truly doing extremely well. Sometimes we forget this. But if you look carefully at these businesses, these are really world-class businesses with industry-leading returns, giving us the solidity and backdrop of the company and really being the foundation on which we can build. This is the flow that we have today. At the same time, the success in these foundation businesses also underpin our belief that what we have done before, we can do it also in the Battery Materials space because we work on the same core competencies. We continue to see this as a growth market and with a clear eye on long-term value creation. So I would like to thank everybody for dialing in so early this morning. I really look forward to engaging with you in the future as well. And of course, if there would be any remaining questions, please reach out to Investor Relations team and we'll be gladly to work with you. So wish you a wonderful day and talk to you soon.

Thank you for joining today's call. You may now disconnect.