Albemarle Corp (ALB) — Q4 2024 Earnings Call Transcript

Thank you, and welcome, everyone, to Albemarle's Fourth Quarter 2024 Earnings Conference Call. Our earnings were released after the market yesterday, and you'll find the press release and earnings presentation posted to our website under the Investors section at albemarle.com. Joining me on the call today are Kent Masters, Chief Executive Officer; and Neal Sheorey, Chief Financial Officer. Netha Johnson, Chief Operations Officer; and Eric Norris, Chief Commercial Officer, are also available for Q&A. As a reminder, some of the statements made during this call including our outlook, guidance, expected company performance and strategic initiatives may constitute forward-looking statements. Please note the cautionary language about forward-looking statements contained in our press release and earnings presentation, which also applies to this call. Please also note that some of our comments today refer to non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations can be found in our earnings materials. And now I'll turn the call over to Kent.

Thank you, Meredith. For the fourth quarter, we reported net sales of $1.2 billion and an adjusted EBITDA of $251 million with year-over-year EBITDA improvements in all of our business segments. Turning to the full year of 2024. We achieved an adjusted EBITDA of $1.1 billion in line with our outlook considerations due to significant productivity and cost improvements, higher volumes and strong contract performance. Our Energy Storage segment delivered a 26% year-over-year increase in sales volumes, surpassing our initial guidance of 10% to 20% growth, driven by successful project ramps and increased spodumene sales. We also generated $702 million in cash from operations with an operating cash conversion rate exceeding 60%, which is above our target of 50% and in line with our long-term objective. Albemarle continues to act decisively across four key areas: optimizing our conversion network, improving cost and efficiency, reducing capital expenditure and enhancing financial flexibility. We'll touch on each of these areas in more detail later in the call. As part of these initiatives, today, we're announcing new measures to further optimize our global conversion network, including placing the Chengdu lithium conversion facility into care and maintenance by midyear of 2025 and shifting capacity at our Qinzhou lithium conversion facility somewhat from hydroxide to carbonate. As we did last year, we are providing our outlook based on a range of lithium market prices, including a new $9 per kilogram scenario and updated $12 to $15 per kilogram and $20 per kilogram scenarios. Compared to 2024, we have improved our outlook across these ranges due to our ongoing efforts to enhance productivity and reduce cost. Additionally, we have further decreased our full year 2025 CapEx outlook by an additional $100 million; we now expect to spend in the range of $700 million to $800 million. Thanks to these and other measures, we now have line of sight to achieve breakeven free cash flow in 2025. Now I'll turn it over to Neal, who will provide more details on our full year and fourth quarter performance, outlook considerations and market conditions. Then I'll conclude our prepared remarks with updates on our long-term competitive position, strategic framework and execution.

Thank you, Kent, and good morning, everyone. I will begin with a review of our fourth quarter and full year 2024 performance on Slide 5. In the fourth quarter, we reported net sales of $1.2 billion, which represented a year-over-year decline primarily due to lower lithium market pricing. Fourth quarter adjusted EBITDA was $251 million, an increase year-over-year driven by improvements across all three businesses as well as reduced corporate costs. Note that last year's adjusted EBITDA included a $604 million lower of cost or market pretax charge. Earnings per share for the fourth quarter were $0.29. Adjusted earnings per share reflected a loss of $1.09, excluding gains on asset sales, reduced restructuring charges and discrete tax items. For the full year 2024, net sales were $5.4 billion, marking a year-over-year decrease primarily related to lower lithium pricing, partially offset by robust growth in lithium volumes. Full year EBITDA reached $1.1 billion, in line with our outlook considerations. Slide 6 shows the drivers of our year-over-year EBITDA performance. Our Q4 adjusted EBITDA of $251 million surpassed last year's result due to higher volumes, productivity and lower cost of goods sold. The EBITDA volume benefit was driven by higher volumes in specialties and the conclusion of the MARBL joint venture marketing agreement at the end of 2023. The cost of goods sold improvement was split between lower spodumene costs and reduced lower of cost or market adjustments. These benefits were partially offset by lower pricing and pretax equity income, mainly from reduced lithium and spodumene market prices. As Kent mentioned, adjusted EBITDA improved year-over-year in all three business segments, and we also reported lower corporate overhead costs. Moving to Slide 7, we present our outlook considerations for 2025. As we did last year, we are providing ranges of outcomes for our energy storage business based on recently observed lithium market pricing, including year-end 2024 market pricing of about $9 per kilogram lithium carbonate equivalent. All three scenarios reflect the results of assumed flat market pricing across the year in conjunction with Energy Storage's current book of business. These scenarios illustrate the improved stability of our Energy Storage business. Given our extensive resource positions worldwide and our cost and productivity actions, we can sustain margins even with lower year-over-year lithium pricing. Additionally, we have maintained significant operating leverage with potential to benefit if pricing increases. For example, if market pricing were to average $12 per kilogram LCE, similar to last year, we would expect to see margin improvement rising from the mid-20% range that we delivered in 2024 to the mid-30% range. Moving to Slide 8, we present modeling considerations for Specialties, Ketjen and Corporate. Specialties 2025 net sales are projected to be $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion with adjusted EBITDA of $210 million to $280 million. Ketjen's 2025 net sales are projected to be $1 billion to $1.1 billion with adjusted EBITDA of $120 million to $150 million. The Corporate outlook shows a planned decrease in capital expenditures, which are now expected to total $700 million to $800 million in 2025, down from $1.7 billion in 2024. Corporate costs in 2025 are expected to range between $70 million and $100 million. We are seeing the benefits of our non-manufacturing cost improvements and the changes in our operating structure. Corporate costs in 2025 are expected to decrease year-over-year, excluding favorable foreign exchange and interest income in the prior year. Adding it all together, slide 9 presents Albemarle's comprehensive company roll-up for each energy storage market price scenario. Notably, assuming a consistent average lithium market price of $12 per kilogram LCE in 2025, we expect cost and productivity improvements to more than compensate for the reduced equity earnings. Turning to Slide 10 for additional outlook commentary by segment. For Energy Storage, we anticipate volumes to be slightly higher year-over-year primarily due to the ongoing ramp of the Salar yield improvement project in Chile. We continue to ramp our conversion sites, including Meishan and Kemerton, which helps improve fixed cost absorption and result in reduced tolling volumes. We have maintained significant operating leverage with the potential to benefit if pricing increases. We foresee a modest volume-led recovery in Specialties year-over-year driven by strength in pharma, autos and oilfield applications. Finally, in Ketjen, we expect modest improvements in 2025 results related to product mix, cost and productivity improvements.

Thank you, Neal. Moving on to Slide 15. I will discuss the major initiatives we are implementing to reset our cost structure. These measures will enable us to sustain our leadership position and be competitive across the cycle. Moving to Slide 16. It is essential to place our recent initiatives within the context of the measures we have been implementing over several quarters as we navigate the current business environment. This year, we are optimizing our conversion network, including new actions at Chengdu and Qinzhou, improving cost and efficiency with significant progress toward our $300 million to $400 million target for cost and productivity improvements, reducing capital expenditures as we refine our 2025 execution plans and enhancing financial flexibility. Taken together, we now have greater confidence in our ability to achieve breakeven free cash flow as early as this year at current price levels. Our initiatives are comprehensive and designed to sustain our long-term competitive advantages in response to market conditions. As the dynamic environment persists, we are continually adding to our list of potential actions so that we can adapt as necessary. Turning to Slide 17 for additional details. The shifting market underscores the need for a globally diversified conversion network with product flexibility. As previously mentioned, we are optimizing production from both our carbonate and hydroxide assets, achieving record production at the La Negra lithium carbonate plant in Chile and the Meishan lithium hydroxide plant in China. As we have reviewed our conversion network for improvement opportunities, we have made the decision to place our Chengdu plant on care and maintenance due to market conditions and shifting product mix.

Moving to Slide 12 shows our focus on execution and converting our earnings into cash, evident in improved operating cash flow conversion due to operational discipline and cash management. For 2024, operating cash conversion was 62%, surpassing our target of 50% and aligning with our long-term target range. This was driven by increased Talison dividends from higher Greenbushes sales volumes and inventory and cash management improvements across operations. Looking to 2025, we expect our cash dividends from Talison in the year to remain below historical averages as Talison completes the CGP3 project at the Greenbushes mine. Nonetheless, we expect operating cash flow conversion to exceed 80% in 2025, above our long-term target range, due to ongoing working capital improvements and a $350 million customer prepayment. This prepayment relates to a recently signed contract for delivery of spodumene and lithium salts over the next 5 years at market index prices. As you see here, our efforts to enhance operating cash flow and cash flow conversion are paying off. This focus is evident in our free cash flow expectations this year. We now have line of sight to breakeven free cash flow through new capacity ramp-ups, inventory management, bidding events, cost and productivity measures and other cash conversion enhancements.

In summary, Albemarle delivered solid 2024 performance while acting decisively to preserve long-term growth optionality and maintain the company's industry-leading position through the cycle. Our full year 2025 company outlook considerations build on the progress we've made to drive enterprise-wide cost improvements, strong energy storage project ramps and contract performance. We are focusing on taking broad-based proactive steps to control what we can control and ensure we are competitive across the cycle. Albemarle remains a global leader, and I am confident we are taking the right actions to maintain our competitive position and to capitalize on the long-term secular opportunities in our markets. I look forward to seeing some of you face-to-face at upcoming events listed here on Slide 24. Thank you for joining us today, and we look forward to continuing on our journey together. Stay safe and take care.

I guess my first question is on the contract mix. That remaining 50% piece not on long-term agreements, should we assume most of those follow spot mechanisms? And then was there any significant tranche of those long-term agreements that came up for renegotiation recently and had any respective reset in floors?

Yes. Your observation about the remaining 50% being largely indexed is a valid point. We've previously reported that approximately two-thirds of our contracts were in that category. However, we are now only including contracts that have floors in our reporting. We had some long-term agreements that lacked floors, and we have excluded those from our definition. Therefore, that 50% now consists of contracts with floors. To my knowledge, we haven't had any recent renegotiations or renewals for those contracts.

Could your actions including cutting CapEx and placing Chengdu under care and maintenance influence the broader market? And how might your actions adjust further if pricing stays at the low end of the scenario analysis?

I don't think our actions at Chengdu will influence the market. We're making changes due to market conditions and product mix. We have the chance to shift some product from hydroxide to carbonate at Qinzhou. Chengdu is one of our smallest facilities, so it likely won't have much impact on the market. We will compensate for that capacity because we're still ramping up other larger assets at Xinyu, Qinzhou, along with smaller investments in Meishan and Kemerton.

This is Neal. Yes, so the wide range is really driven by the variety of scenarios that we have on the page or in the deck here. One of the reasons why we had kind of an odd tax rate in the fourth quarter and really in 2024 overall is that, as you've seen over the last few quarters, we've been reporting losses in a couple of jurisdictions where we took tax evaluation allowances. So therefore, we didn't get to recognize the tax credits in our tax expense line. Those two jurisdictions in particular are China and Australia, where we have some particulars that require us to take those tax valuation allowances. So why there's a wide variety on the tax ranges, it's really about where the lithium price is and that influence on our pretax income. Obviously, at the lower end of the range, what our guidance has said is go to a tax rate very similar to what we did in 2024. And if you're at the higher end of the range, you kind of come more to our run rate kind of statutory rate that we have based on our geographic mix.

This is Apurva speaking for Ben. You mentioned the expectation of reaching free cash flow breakeven by 2025. Is achieving this outcome simply a matter of everything aligning perfectly? Are there any potential risks beyond just a collapse in pricing?

We need to execute our plan effectively. Pricing will be a part of that, and we have some ambitious goals. You can observe the steps we've already taken, and we believe we've done a good job executing so far. However, we still need to stay focused and execute to achieve our objectives.

Kent, on your realized lithium prices in Q4, what was the difference in spread between your spot sales and your contract sales?

So we don't normally report on the exact pricing and particularly on our contract piece. So I'm going to decline to respond to that.

Understood. I believe back in Q4, you were saying that roughly 10% to 12% of global lithium supply was shut down and curtailed due to lower prices. Is that still a good estimate? Or has it moved up since then?

Yes. So I think we were saying about 25%, we believe, is underwater. And we still think that's the case.

On Slide 7, where you present various scenarios, does this slide imply that if there were no changes in lithium prices today, the energy storage adjusted EBITDA would be between $0.6 billion and $0.7 billion? Or is it more complex than that due to your contract prices?

Jeff, this is Neal. I think my answer aligns more with the latter part of your description. The prices shown at the top of the slide are observed market prices, not our realized prices. The numbers below indicate that if you take those market prices and apply them to our business, you arrive at these EBITDA ranges.

I believe IGO guided for essentially flat 2025 volume at Greenbushes. Can you confirm that? And then where is your growth, the 5% to 10% growth for 2025 coming from?

John, it's Eric. That's correct. CGP2 was fully utilized, which was the last expansion at Talison in 2024. CGP2 does not come on until the very end of this year. So there is no growth capacity at Talison until that comes on. Our 0% to 10% guidance on growth is all coming out of Chile, where the Salar yield project continues to ramp and drives debottlenecking effectively over the La Negra plant to march towards nameplate.

Yes, that's the right point. In a stabilized market, it's aspirational for us because we're not there yet, but we believe we are at the bottom of the market, which serves as a good benchmark. We consider mid-cycle pricing to be our target, although we're not at that level today. We need to do more work in that area, but we are focusing on it and wanted to establish a benchmark to aim for.

I want to follow up on Ben's associate's prior question. Can you discuss how much of your sales for 2026 will be under contracted floors? Will those floors need to be renegotiated? Also, how do you view the leverage on the balance sheet if spot prices remain where they are and we are renegotiating floors for 2026?

Yes. We provided guidance for 2025, not 2026. Our contracts typically do not end and get renegotiated all at once; rather, they are adjusted over time based on the needs of both parties. This has been the way we operate historically. We anticipate that this pattern will continue. Recently, our portfolio of contracts has leaned more towards spot pricing because China, being the largest market, is a spot market that's experiencing growth, and we have new capacity coming online with Meishan ramping up. This shift explains the change in our contracts. Instead of contracts simply ending, we negotiate terms along the way and often extend them for a year or two, and this approach will likely continue in the future. Okay. So I don't know if I can comment on all of that. I would say that we're pretty focused on making sure we can compete at the bottom of the cycle. And so when you see us taking actions and have targeted at that. So the capital that we pulled back on our growth to reduce capital as a result of that, driving cost out of the business, getting more focused on cost, not as much on growth and making sure that we can compete at that cycle and then pivot when the market comes back to take advantage of more growth and higher prices. So that's the approach that we're taking.

I wanted to follow up on the $350 million customer prepayment. And just a clarifying question to start off with, which would be, I assume that's included when you talk about the 80% conversion as well as being free cash flow neutral this year. I assume you're including the $350 million. And all else equal then, does that mean next year cash flow would be $350 million less?

So Vincent, this is Neal. Regarding the first part of your question, you are correct. The $350 million is part of our 80% cash conversion figure for 2025. Looking ahead to 2026, it's important to note that the $350 million will not occur again in that year. However, there are several other factors from a cash perspective that will begin to benefit us in 2026 and beyond.

If you look at your CapEx, you're talking about maintenance level. Assuming market prices don't change, can you get to that maintenance level in 2026? And would you be willing to do so under these conditions?

I'm not going to commit to capital for 2026. Our goal is to reach a maintenance capital level at that time. We still see opportunities for growth and cost savings, which may involve smaller investments.

Kent, you talked a little bit about the grid storage growth in your prepared remarks. Can you comment on your outlook for 2025 in that end market? And is your share in grid storage higher or lower or about the same as it is in your customers in the EV arena?

Yes. So the grid storage has been one that's been a positive surprise for us for a few years now as it's been growing. I think it was up almost 50% this year. And we anticipate that continuing to grow. And a couple of years ago, we probably would have thought lithium may not be the best solution for grid storage, but I think the way battery costs have come down and the popularity of LFP, it looks like grid storage is going to be lithium-based and LFP-based going forward. So it's a good opportunity. And it's a bright spot and it's offset a little bit of the little less growth that we saw in EVs and some of the shifts between plug-in hybrids and BEVs as well. So it's covered that and built in nicely.

And Kevin, as for the market share, first of all, it's largely an LFP market. So if you look at our share in LFP on EVs, PHEVs, et cetera, can be similar to our share in grid storage. It's the same companies. It's deepened back into the supply chain that are providing the cathode and battery materials into that. So that's what determines our share of those relationships, not necessarily the end markets.

So are we managing the company differently? We're closely watching the situation as it develops. The final impact is uncertain. However, the direct effects on Albemarle will not be significant. We do not ship significantly from China to the U.S., and while there is some shipping, it is not a major part of our business. Our customers will be impacted more than we will be directly. Therefore, the secondary effects that concern us are what we are really focused on.

So a couple of questions. First, on Energy Storage, how much of your capacity is under long-term contract compared to the EV market?

It's about 50%.

Yes, it's the same, Laurence. The other 50% we talked about being under floor-based contracts. The 50% that isn't is based on spot pricing in the contracts. It's a mix of shorter-duration contracts and spot pricing.

Laurence, I apologize, you mentioned that it was a question about fixed storage? Yes. So certainly, I can talk a little bit about that. It depends on how we're moving capacity or supply chain, what we choose to tap to prioritize, and we'd never let on what we're prioritizing for 2026 and 2027 in advance.