Linde plc — 2024 Q1
Transcript
Each turn shows the speaker, their inferred role, the section, and that turn's net sentiment (×1000).
Ladies and gentlemen, good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Linde's First Quarter 2024 Earnings Call and Webcast. [Operator Instructions] And please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. [Operator Instructions]
Abby, thank you, and good morning, everyone. Thanks for attending our 2024 first quarter earnings call and webcast. I am Juan Pelaez, Head of Investor Relations. And I'm joined this morning by Sanjiv Lamba, Chief Executive Officer; and Matt White, Chief Financial Officer. Today's presentation materials are available on our website at linde.com in the Investors section.
Thanks, Juan, and a very good morning, everyone. The Linde team delivered another solid quarter despite stagnant economic conditions across most regions. EPS of $3.75 grew 10%. ROC increased to 25.6% and operating margins reached 28.9%. These all represent record levels even though volumes declined 1%.
Thanks, Sanjiv. Slide 4 provides consolidated results for the first quarter. Sales of $8.1 billion declined 1% from prior year and 2% sequentially. When excluding the impact of cost pass-through and engineering project timing, Underlying sales increased 1% over last year but remained flat sequentially.
[Operator Instructions] And your first question comes from Duffy Fischer with Goldman Sachs.
First question is just around electronics. A lot of incoming calls on electronics, investors seem to be getting more and more bullish. How much leverage do you have to electronics in that we know what the revenue is, but I believe it carries a higher margin than average? So if electronics picks up, how much leverage could that give to the whole of Linde? And are you seeing signs that the electronics market is picking up for you guys going forward?
Duffy, you're right in suggesting that there is a general view on electronics that we are seeing an improvement. As you know, we -- it's about 10% -- just under 10% of our overall portfolio. About 30% of our backlog today is investment in electronics. All of that is playing out. Our view is towards the back end of this year, we expect that recovery that everyone is talking about, led by AI chips or data centers to actually gather momentum. We haven't baked anything into our guidance, as you're aware, but we do expect to see some momentum build up. We've seen a decent electronics performance in China, and we are seeing equally in the rest of Asia, a reasonable level of bottoming out, which hopefully then points to a recovery in the second half.
Great. And then maybe just jump to low-carbon hydrogen, blue hydrogen for you guys. You put out a couple of slides over the last 1.5 years or so, sizing that market over the last decade. Just kind of an update, how are those conversations going? What should investors expect as far as announcements again, primarily with sizable projects? And then the one you've announced with OCI, how is that progressing as far as finding partners for the CO2 sequestration and just general progress on that?
Sure. So let me start off by just giving you a broader picture of what I see around clean energy projects, and then I'll talk specifically about projects we are developing and then OCI. So overall, I'd say to you, I see momentum on clean energy projects moderating a little bit. We are seeing that there is a lot more effort now in upfront feasibility studies and field studies to ensure that there is greater diligence as projects are being taken to FID. In fact, McKinsey has done a study that shows that of the announcements that get made in this space only 6.8%. So let's say, 7% of projects make it to FID, which I think is a reflection of the high dying down and some high-quality projects then surfacing and moving forward.
We will take our next question from Mike Leithead with Barclays.
Just one question for me. On the full year guide and outlook and sort of where Matt ended the prepared remarks. Obviously, a nice start to the year but you decided to narrow the range a bit instead of, I think, historically, you've raised by the better quarter. Can you just further frame out how you're thinking about the outlook? And has anything softened from your original expectations?
So I'm going to let Matt talk a little bit about the guidance itself. Mike, what I might do is just maybe walk you guys around the world because really I think it's important to just share with you what we are seeing around the world, and I think it sets the tone for how we think about the guidance. So I'll start just very quickly and give you a brief on Americas.
Sure. So I think, Mike, I'll start with how we approach the guide is really no different than how we've been approaching it for the last 4 to 5 years. And to clarify, when we say no improvement in the economy, it really means from now -- from what we're seeing now. And so when you go back in the last couple of months, I'd say, as we mentioned in the prepared remarks, it's been stagnant to even declining in some regions. So we've updated for that and held that for the remainder of the year. So even though, like Sanjiv just mentioned, the year-over-year comps in the second half get easier, so from the 2023 baseline. So even though that may demonstrate positive numbers just given a softer baseline, that's not how we're thinking about it. We're thinking about it from the current status and how it moves forward more sequentially. So that's how we applied it.
We will take our next question from Peter Clark with Bernstein.
I don't think it'll be surprised to my question. The EMEA margin comfortably ahead of the Americas now actually. You did get it ahead in Q3 last year, but there were some funnies in the Americas, I think, then with the power surge, et cetera. So just your view on it going forward because I think structurally, the EMEA could be the higher-margin region anyway. And then following on that, on the pricing in the EMEA, sequentially, it was up 2%. Year-on-year, it was up 3%, very strong performance. I'm not sure if you had much in terms of energy surcharges coming off in the bulk gases like some of your peers. But just your view on the pricing situation, particularly in Europe.
I know you've said in the past that EMEA margins should be the highest. So we've finally gotten there as you can see. Now as Matt stated in his prepared remarks, EMEA margins are a combination of a number of factors that we've taken into account price, cost management, managing the spread, right? And I have to say a credit to the team, they do a good job of managing that pricing to inflation, identifying opportunities to manage both fixed and variable costs on an ongoing basis. We do a lot of work, including using AI around our power management, in particular, which is a big number, as you know.
We will take our next question from Jeffrey Zekauskas with JPMorgan.
Your volumes year-on-year were down 1%. And I think one of the things that Linde says is that new projects add about 2% growth. So should we think of the volume growth or the base volume growth is really negative 3%? Or is the amount that you expect from new projects smaller? And then secondly, your average gross margin -- your average EBITDA margin is around 37%. When you look at your helium business, is your helium business meaningfully above that margin or below or at that level?
Let me start off by just addressing the base volume piece. So I'd say the new projects added about 1 percentage point on growth and base volumes are down about minus 2%, I'd say to you, which as I've said before, reflect for us our globally weighted industrial production. I've also said before that we are not happy with where that number is, and that growth is also a key priority and focus for us, and we're pushing on many of those growth levers across the world. So I feel that we've got a number of actions in play at the moment, which is there to support base volume as we move forward.
And we will take our next question from David Begleiter of Deutsche Bank.
Question on CapEx. Given the lack of volume growth the last few quarters, why are you not increasing CapEx as opposed to now lowering it here?
David, you know how we think about our business, right? For us, as we are seeing the industrial environment around us, we are actually ensuring that we are taking productivity actions across the board, right? And CapEx is no different. So the CapEx reduction is really driven by CapEx optimization, both in our backlog and the base CapEx as well. And the teams around the world have scrubbed their CapEx numbers and they are kind of consistent with the weak industrial activity that we're seeing.
We will take our next question from Vincent Andrews with Morgan Stanley.
This is Steve Haynes on for Vincent. Just wanted to maybe come back to the Americas performance in the quarter and two of the bigger pieces of your pie there, manufacturing and health care were down. It sounds like maybe you walked away from some volume and also had some -- maybe some onetime issues into aerospace. So I would be interested if you kind of quantify the collective impact of those 2 items and what you're assuming for the balance of the year or just generally how we should be thinking about that.
Yes. So I mean, as I said earlier on, as I was talking about the Americas, we basically -- we did see -- let's start with the hard goods part of the business, which is related to the manufacturing piece. So hard goods were down mid-single digit. And yes, we've been taking a very close look at that equipment portfolio, and we've been rationalizing where we think it's appropriate. So we are seeing a reflection of that in the numbers there.
We will take our next question from John Roberts with Mizuho.
We're seeing project cost inflation across a lot of our industries, not just gases, but chemicals broadly. Does that drive any shift between sale of gas in sale of plant as you have new project discussions with customers? Or does that not affect that decision?
John, we look at every project on merit, and we will make -- as you know, we've said before, we are unique in the fact that we have that optionality between pursuing sale of gas versus sale of plants. So we look at fundamental economics around the project and then -- and look at the risk profile before we determine which way we go. Really, the project cost movement or capital cost inflation, that's broadly there in the marketplace isn't really a factor that gets considered over there. I think what we consider is the risk return profile. If it meets our investment criteria, we are happy to have that as the sale of gas backlog and you see that we are currently executing just under $5 billion of those. So it feels that we have that optionality as a really strong competitive advantage when we go to market for such projects.
And we will take our next question from Josh Spector with UBS.
I had a question on two of your kind of recent announcements here. So when you talked about decaptivating some assets from a metals customer in Asia, is that hitting the books now? Or is that something that's to benefit more a quarter or two from now? And then also with your electrolyzer investments in Latin America, just curious if you could frame around the environment down there. I think we're talking more about investments in North America and Europe and particularly around support or subsidy schemes, so how does that differ from those regions versus Latin America and why invest there?
Sure, let's start off with the decaptivation. So you're right, we've decaptivated a plant from one of the large steel customers, as I said earlier on in my prepared remarks, customers see the benefit of bringing those assets into our network, obviously, enhances reliability, enhances efficiency. And clearly, Linde is the preferred option when it comes to operating plants like this. So when we think about decaptivation for us, decaptivation opportunities have to meet the same investment criteria that we would set for our own investments. We are happy to purchase these assets where those conditions are met, where the quality of the asset and the quality of the customer are good.
We will take our next question from Patrick Cunningham with Citi.
This is Eric Zhang on for Patrick. Can you elaborate on the productivity initiatives in Americas and EMEA? Have those initiatives changed or have been adjusted to account for any changes in your macro outlook?
We've said this in the past, I'm going to now just reiterate the point that there is no silver bullet around productivity. We run about 13,000 to 14,000 projects a year. A significant portion of those projects happen both in Americas and in EMEA. So there is a track record of taking those productivity projects and driving them hard to make sure that those benefits come through. The EMEA margins are reflecting that, right? There has been a lot of action both around managing total cash fixed cost with a lot of rigor around that and ensuring that productivity actions are happening and projects are being developed. The Americas across the board from U.S., Canada to Latin America have got a great organizational rigor around productivity projects, and we are seeing them ramp up, given the economic conditions.
And we will take our next question from John McNulty with BMO Capital Markets.
So I wanted to address the price versus cost kind of environment in APAC. I think we've seen the pricing moderate a little bit or at least decelerate. But I think, Matt, in your comments, you spoke to a deflationary environment from a cost perspective. So I guess, can you help us to think about that balance and how to think about maybe pricing in the region as we push forward?
Yes, John, sure. This is Matt. So you're absolutely right. We always think about it in terms of a spread, right, because there's different inflationary environments everywhere in the world. And our model is very, very local. So managing the spread is very important. And when you think about APAC, clearly, China does make up a large portion of that segment. And as I mentioned, in China, you are seeing some deflationary conditions. And this is the primary reason why we talked about taking cost actions out several quarters ago, which we've been undertaking. So the dynamic we're seeing in China, while volumes are flattish, like Sanjiv said, pricing is also flattish, and so costs are actually coming down. And that spread is still positive in that regard.
We will take our next question from Steve Byrne with Bank of America.
I was just curious about your pipeline of targeted acquisitions, potentially increase your density even greater for your merchant and packaged gases businesses. You have more opportunities? And can you comment on geographically where that might exist without regulatory pushback?
See, we are very committed to tuck-in acquisitions anywhere in the world. And to your point, network density is what guides that decision for us to be able to bring a tuck-in acquisition, enhance our network density and actually move that business forward is how we see a good growth opportunity. As you know, in the U.S., we have a track record of doing many of these. The last one that we did, which was which is large enough, I would argue, is nexAir, it's proven to be tremendously successful, looking really good as we integrate that business into Southeast U.S., and that's a very attractive market in which to do that.
And we will take our next question from Michael Sison with Wells Fargo.
This is Avi on for Mike. So just in terms of your project intake, that's obviously down a bit year-over-year and quarter-over-quarter. I was just wondering if you're going to attribute that to your focus on only taking on higher quality projects or if there are other factors at play.
I'll just go back and tell you that when we think about our backlog today and then we look at order intake, the backlog we've got is about $8.3 billion. It's currently under execution. We have a healthy order intake pipeline. I think engineering does just under $0.5 billion of order intake a quarter. That looks pretty much on track at the moment. Yes, we do take high-quality projects. There's no question on that. But we have a unique position in the fact that Linde's engineering business is one of the leading engineering entities and gas processing in our space, we are the leader and therefore, well sought after today by customers who would like to continue to build on relationships that we've maintained with them over the past. So I feel good about where we stand with the project intake as things stand. And if you look at the sale of gas backlog, I'll just do the math for you over here because I'll kind of underpin that for you as well in terms of order intake.
Okay. So you're anticipating a higher order intake later on in the year is what I'm hearing versus earlier in the year?
So on the sale of gas backlog, as I said, we are -- we developed projects over a period of time, and we will start up about $1.5 billion to $2 billion of projects that are already being executed, and we expect to add back into the sale of gas backlog and therefore, the order intake for engineering around the same level to try and get very close to the $5 billion mark by the end of the year. Does that clarify?
Yes, that's helpful.
We will take our next question from Laurent Favre with BNP.
I just have one question left. On the H2 green steel side, I noticed it was just the ASU contract. I was wondering if there was any reason why you haven't been involved on the hydrogen supply in the first place? Is it by choice or I guess, by accident? And when we think about further green steel announcements in particular in Europe, should we be assuming that you may have bigger exposure to those means than [ 150 million ] unit?
Right. So on H2 Green Steel, the agreed scope that we wanted to do was the air separation, and we are very happy with having that opportunity to supply them. They are going to be probably one of the larger green steel projects starting up in Europe probably earlier than most others. There are other projects that we are also pursuing. The scope depends on the agreement we have with the customer. And obviously, you know that we are very mindful about how we see electrolysis development. Obviously, renewable energy availability guides a lot of that as does reliability and the capital intensity around those projects. So we tend to -- pick and choose based on that. There are projects that we are currently developing in Europe around steel that include supply of hydrogen and in others, we stick to the industrial gas portion, which is air separation.
And a follow-up for Matt. On the cut-off date for Q1 cash flow and working capital, can you maybe size impact for us? Is it most of the $0.5 billion outflow you had in Q1?
Yes. I'm sorry, could you repeat that? It was the outflow in Q1 related to what?
Yes. On the cutoff date, on Good Friday, I was just wondering if we should assume that most of the working capital outflow year-on-year is related to that timing and we should see that $0.5 billion come back in the second quarter?
Yes. So to your exact point, when you look at the face of the cash flow, the AR year-on-year is unfavorable, about $250 million. And the majority of that was associated with some of this timing impact. As you can imagine, Good Friday was a bank holiday in most jurisdictions, even Holy Thursday, arguably in some in Latin America. And so that created a bit of a timing dynamic on the receivables. But when we monitored the first few weeks of April, we've definitely seen a rebound on that timing. And so I would expect to get that back in Q2 as we mentioned, and should get back on track. So really, the AR was the only thing that stuck out and it really was a function of this timing component because, as you know, these are all contractual customers. These are contractual terms, and they obviously need to pay to continue to get supply.
And we will take our final question from Laurence Alexander with Jefferies.
Could you unpack two comments? So one, with respect to kind of the difference in pricing philosophy, particularly kind of in merchants, are you seeing that translate into share gains relative to competitors? Or just kind of like what's the practical impact of the difference in philosophy? And then the second is with respect to the comment about sort of the number of elections this year. Do you get a sense for your customers that there is a pent-up project list where once there is political clarity, we should see project flow through to your backlog fairly quickly? Or is there more of a kind of -- the disruptions are longer reaching because of people aren't even in planning mode given the kind of uncertainty around what longer-term policy directions will be? Just wondering to see -- exactly where you see the nervousness translating into how projects flow through to your backlog over the next, say, 6 to 8 quarters?
Let's start -- let's start with the project pipeline and it's a reflection on the backlog, Laurence. So I'll distinguish this between traditional projects and clean energy projects. On the traditional projects, we see a lot of project activity continue. I would say that elections aren't having a dramatic impact on timing. I think people are just being very intentional about the projects that they wish to pursue. I have said that in India, we saw a little bit of a slowdown in the business just given the ongoing elections, but that's just around logistics and day-to-day business as opposed to decisions being made from a long-term perspective.
And I would now like to turn the conference back over to Mr. Juan Pelaez for any additional or closing remarks.
Abby, thank you, and thank you, everyone else for participating in today's call. I hope you have a productive day. Stay safe. Bye.
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. We thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.