Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
© Copyright 2017 McKeany-Flavell
11 Embarcadero West, Suite 200, Oakland, CA 94607 | 510 832 2866 | mckeany-flavell.com
Prepared for The American Sugar AllianceAugust 2017
Sugar Market Outlook
Sugar demand, totalFood deliveries: Is demand really growing?How have concerns surrounding genetically modified crops (GM vs. non-GM) affected sugar demand?What consumer are our customer, food and beverage companies, targeting?How costly is reformulation?What is the biggest threat to demand for sugar?
Supply sideAvailability of refined sugar: Do we have enough?Is the call for non-GM sugar really affecting our refining capacity?
Trade policyHow will the amendments to the Suspension Agreements change our market?
Pricing scenariosA look at pricing scenario for cane, beet, and overall market
Factors affecting the U.S. sugar market
2
USDA showing 2016/17 deliveries up 3.5 over 2015/16—is this growth real???Debate over guidelines for calories from added sugarManufacturers casting for any way to cut calories while also staying “Natural”
3
Is USDA-projected 3.5 percent growth for 2016/17 real?
*EstimateSource: USDA, McKeany-Flavell
+3.7%
+2.9%
+0.6%
-0.1%
+3.5%
+1.0%
-4%
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%Sugar (Food) Deliveries, Annual Growth Rate
Cane vs. beet: Between 2014 and 2016, concern over potential labeling laws and a push to “All Natural” supported cane deliveries, but did real growth happen?Large beet crops, higher prices for raw sugar, and delay in labeling laws may see some demand switch back to beet sugar.Non-reporters may be holding massive inventories—currently counted as “deliveries” by USDA.“Added Sugars” campaign could negatively impact the public’s perception of sugar.
Factors affecting sugar demand
4
5
Domestic beet & cane sugar deliveries
* Estimate
46% 47% 49%44% 44% 46% 45%
45% 44% 43% 42%46%
54% 53% 51%56% 56% 54% 55%
55% 56%57% 58%
54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Mill
ion
shor
t sto
ns r
aw v
alue
Beet sugar domestic consumpt ion Cane sugar domest ic consumption
Growth in sugar use over the past three years appears to have gone to cane refiners.
Growth in cane sugar deliveries may be attributed to multiple factors, such as more competitive pricing when raw sugar prices were around $0.2450 in 2013/14, combined with marketing decisions by end users.
6
Overview of growth in cane sugar deliveries
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Mill
ion
shor
t ton
s, ph
ysic
al v
alue
Cane Sugar Deliveries to Cereal & Baked Goods to Confect ioneryto Dairy & Ice Cream to Beveragesto Other Processed Foods to All Other Food Uses
7
U.S. sugar deliveries: beet sugar gaining market share since July 2016
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Thou
sand
sho
rt to
ns, r
aw v
alue
Beet Sugar Deliveries for Domestic Consumption Cane Sugar Deliveries for Domestic Consumption
Beet deliveries for the first eight months of 2016/17 are up 19 percent from the same period last season.
More competitively priced beet sugar and high raw sugar prices affect deliveries for refiners.
Consumers:Have limited understanding of what “genetically modified” (GM) means.Nevertheless fear GM foods.Overwhelmingly claim to want transparency, such as labeling of products containing GM ingredients.
How does the “man on the street” feel about the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) debate?
8
43% 46% 47%41% 41% 42% 41% 42% 41% 40% 39%
43%
51% 52% 49% 51%52% 49% 50%
50%51%
52% 54%51%
6%2%
4%8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 8% 8% 7% 6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Shar
e of
dom
estic
con
sum
ptio
n
Mill
ion
STRV
Beet Sugar Domest ic Consumption Cane Sugar Domestic ConsumptionPresumed Non-reporter Deliveries
9
Domestic sugar deliveries
* EstimateSource: USDA, McKeany-Flavell
Despite shifts in consumer opinion, the actions of many food and beverage companies suggest that cost remains a chief concern.
Impact of GM debate on specific categories of major sugar use
10
Around 5 percent of sugar usage in this category has a cane-only designationThis segment has seen its share of ingredient changes in the last few years:
Industry-wide reduction of sugar content in cereal formulationsMove away from artificial coloring and flavoring for some products
Cereals sector
11
Sector is hard to track as 70 percent of this category may be considered artisanal productsOf the major brands, very little is labeled non-GM and typically falls into the organic categoryOur best estimate is roughly 1-5 percent of usage involves non-GM claims
Bakery sector
12
13
Sugar deliveries to cereal & baked goods sector
*Forecast based on year-to-date data (October through May)
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
Shor
t ton
s, p
hysi
cal v
alue
Deliveries to Cereal & Baked Goods, Beet Sugar Cane Sugar
Around 30-35 percent of confectionery sugar usage has a cane-only designation.This sector was one of the first to see significant switch to non-GM ingredients.
Confectionery sector
14
*Forecast based on year-to-date data (October through May)
Sugar deliveries to the confectionery sector
15
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
Shor
t ton
s, p
hysi
cal v
alue
Deliveries to the Confect ionery Industry, Beet Sugar Cane Sugar
Confectionery has traditionally been a large user of cane sugar.
Over 60 percent of sugar usage in this category has a cane-only designation when looking at manufacturers producing a variety of dairy products, including ice cream.When narrowing the category to companies that manufacture ice cream exclusively, however, cane-only sugar use drops to about 28 percent.Keep in mind that in order for milk to be non-GMO, cows cannot be given bovine growth hormone (rBST/rBGH).Dairy was an area where re-melters were able to gain market share.
Ice cream & dairy sector
16
*Forecast based on year-to-date data (October through May)
Sugar deliveries to ice cream & dairy sector
17
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
Shor
t ton
s, ph
ysic
al v
alue
Deliveries to Ice Cream & Dairy Indust ry, Beet Sugar Cane Sugar
Eight years of movement away from beet—could be an increase in deliveries by third-party melt stations.
Who is your customer (food & beverage companies) marketing to?
And who is sensitive to the GM food debate?
Millennials...and Gen-Xers...and Baby Boomers...and the Greatest GenerationThose with college degree more likely to view GM favorablyNew mothersMen (47 percent favorable) vs. women (28 percent favorable)Urban vs. suburban vs. ruralVariations by race, ethnicity50 percent of consumers always or sometimes read food labels
The role of demographics in buying patterns
19
67 percent of consumers are not willing to pay a premium.11 percent are willing to pay a premium.Millennials are most likely to pay a premium.
Willing to pay for non-GM?
20
Challenges to reformulation
21
Domestic availability of ingredientsComplexity of ingredient statementEnd-product categoryPlant location Depth of supply chain
Case study 1: baked goods, bread
22
Ingredient Price
per lb, FOB
Possible Non-GM
Replacement
Alternate Ingredient Price
per lb, FOB
Basic Ingredients for a Loaf of Bread
Bleached enriched flour $0.13 n/a $0.13Sugar (beet) $0.30 Sugar (cane) $0.35Soybean and/or canola oil $0.34 Palm oil $0.39Wheat gluten $0.93 n/a $0.93Salt $0.10 n/a $0.10Total $1.80 $1.90
Delta between using GM and non-GM ingredients $0.10
n/a: non-GM ingredient not applicable
Case study 2: confectionery, chocolate
23
Ingredient Price
per lb, FOB
Possible Non-GM
Replacement
Alternate Ingredient Price
per lb, FOB
Basic Ingredients for a Chocolate Bar
Sugar (beet) $0.30 Sugar (cane) $0.35Milk chocolate $2.20 n/a $2.20Cocoa butter $2.85 n/a $2.85Lactose $0.27 n/a $0.27Milk fat $2.25 n/a $2.25Soy lecithin $1.65 Non-GM soy lecithin $3.30Total $9.52 $11.22
Delta between using GM and non-GM ingredients $1.70
n/a: non-GM ingredient not applicable
What is the biggest threat to sugar demand?
24
25
The industry chases the consumer
Dec. 2009: General Mills to Reduce Sugar in Kids’ Cereals
2014: Mexico Sweetened Beverage & Junk Food Taxes
Nov. 2014: Berkeley, CA Soda Tax
Apr. 2015: Chipotle MakesGMO-Free Announcements
Dec. 2015: Hershey to Move to Cane Sugar in Major Products
2016: World Health Organization Backs 20-50 Percent Sugar Taxes
Apr. 2016: Mars to Cut Added Sugar in 3 Yrs. for Select Products
May 2016: FDA’s New Nutrition Label Identifying Added Sugars
Jun. 2016: Philadelphia Passes Soda Tax Measure on Third Try
Nov. 2016: SF, Oakland, Albany, & Boulder Pass Soda Taxes
Nov. 2016: Cook County Approves Sweetened Beverage Tax
2016: Kraft Switches More Top Products to Cane Sugar, Organic
Dec. 2016: Nestle Pledges to Cut Sugar by 40 Percent by 2018
“The new tobacco?”
Source: Google
Food marketing class actions increased from 20 in 2008 to over 425 active cases in 2015 and 2016.
75 percent of these cases are filed in four states: California, 36 percent; New York, 22 percent; Florida, 12 percent; and Illinois, 7 percent.
Suits generally fall in 10 categories; “all natural” “ECJ” and “added sugar” are three that certainly impact sugar
Lawyers’ filed over 50 ECJ lawsuits between 2012 and 2014. Many are active again based on May 2016 FDA guidance, finding that describing sweeteners made from sugar cane on food labels as “ECJ” is false or misleadingAugust 2016 Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald field class actions asserting “excessive consumption of added sugar is toxic to the human body” and…. Under California’s Unfair Competition Law, cereal makers’ marketing of products with added sugar is likely to deceive consumers and is “immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.
Example of how frivolous these class actions are: one active complaint alleges that Subway “Footlong” sandwiches were less than 12 inches long.
Class action law suits – money bag for lawyers
27
Source: U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, Feb. 2017
28
Sugar or beverage taxes around the world
Denmark repealed 80-year old fat and sugar taxes in 2013 and 2014.Ireland and the UK’s soda taxes will go into effect in 2018.
Sugar or beverage taxes in place or announcedSugar or beverage taxes under recent consideration
Berkeley, CABoulder, COSan Francisco, CAAlbany, CAOakland, CAPhiladelphia, PACook County, IL (Chicago)Seattle, WASanta Fe, NM? Voters rejected this taxPortland, OR? Connecticut?
Sweetener & soda taxes in the U.S.
Arkansas adopted a tax on all soft drinks in 1993.
29
Sugar supplyIs the U.S. market in balance?Is there enough refining capacity and raw material to capture all the move to non-GMO?What is Mexico’s role within the U.S. sugar market?
Deliveries of cane sugar increased by nearly 654,000 STRV from 2012/13 to 2015/16 Total deliveries of cane sugar in 2015/16 equaled 6.12 million STRV
Do we have enough non-GM refined sugar to match demand?
31
Cane deliveries in 2015/16 totaled 6.12 million STRVCombined domestic raw production and imports of 7.21 million STRVOn paper, the supply of cane sugar is adequate—however, not all imports ended in the hands of cane refiners
*Domestic raw sugar represents 53 percent of non-GM supply to U.S. refiners, and imports are the remaining 47 percent, so imports are critical to cane refiners maximizing capacity
2015/16 Season
32
Is enough non-GM sugar available?
Chart excludes carryover stocks
GM Sugar
Supply, 41%
Non-GM
Sugar Supply,
59%
33
Monthly cane sugar deliveries vs. capacity
Capacity is based on a operating schedule of 10 days on, 4 days off
589,000 STRV total monthly capacity
98%
86%82%80%
76%
92%
84%86%
93%95%94%93%93%93%88%
81%
89%95%
88%90%93%
89%
98%98%94%92%
79%80%75%
89%
81%
87%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Perc
ent m
onth
ly ca
paci
ty u
tiliz
atio
n
Thou
sand
shor
t ton
s, ra
w v
alue
Cane Sugar Deliveries for Domest ic Consumpt ion Domestic Cane Sugar Capacity
Monthlycapacity utilization
34
How are imports set under the amended Suspension Agreements?
* USDA may request an increase after Apr. 1, from Mexico first, from other countries if needed.Source: McKeany-Flavell
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
U.S. Beet
U.S. Beet (California)
U.S. Cane
Mexico
Key: Note: sugarcane has a mult iyear planting cycle.Planting Harvest
On Oct. 1, the minimum Base Export Limit is set at 70 percent of expected need for Mexican sugar as of July’s WASDE forecast.
Only 30 percent of that limit may enter between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31.
Before Apr. 1, USDA can ask DOC to increase the Export Limit if a sugar shortage is anticipated.*After Apr. 1, the remaining volume of the Export Limit may enter the U.S.
Up to 55 percent of that limit may enter before Apr. 1.
The full Export Limit is assigned based on the March WASDE, effective Apr. 1
Export Limit set at 80 percent of target volume based on Dec. WASDE.
July’s WASDE forecast sets the Base Export Limit for the next season.
Approximately 65 percent of imports have gone to cane refiners in recent yearsHighest import volumes of Mexican sugar are seen between February and May
35
U.S. monthly imports of Mexican sugar
Source: USDA
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Met
ric to
ns, r
aw v
alue
2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17
Approximately 65 percent of imports have gone to cane refiners in recent yearsNew amendments to the Suspension Agreements place Mexico as the de-facto largest raw-sugar-quota holder, limiting refined imports
36
Breakdown of imports of Mexican sugar
* EstimateSource: USDA
25%
11%
24%
38%
23%
41%
26%
67%53%
42%39% 37%
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Mill
ion
met
ric to
ns, r
aw
Estandar Imported from Mexico Refinado Imported from Mexico Total U.S. Sugar Imports
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Mill
ion
shor
t ton
s ra
w v
alue
All Beet Processor Stocks All Cane Processor and Refiner Stocks
Domestic ending stocks by feedstock
* EstimateSource: FSA, McKeany-Flavell
37
Cane refiners’ carryout expected near 15-year lows…
* EstimateBased on projections prior to added TRQ and Mexico quota
The U.S. does require imports: Where are they coming from?
38
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0Million STRV
U.S. Imports of Mexican Sugar Other Imports
Will sugar be delivered against the new quotas? For TRQ, mostly. For Mexico, likely little or none.
39
With stocks-to-use projected at 8.8 percent, USDA acts
* EstimateSource: USDA, McKeany-Flavell
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17* 2017/18*
Mill
ion
shor
t ton
s raw
val
ue
Additional Mexico Quota
Additional Tariff-Rate Quota
Imports from Mexico
Other Program Imports
Tariff-Rate Quota Imports
40
Domestic sugar market timeline: contracted share of industrial use
Source: Trade sources
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Market pricing
* Estimate
Impact on domestic beet sugar industry based on managed supply
42
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Cent
s pe
r po
und
Refined Beet Sugar, FOB Mill Mexico Floor Price (delivered, Chicago) Beet Loan Rate
Projected Beet Sugar, FOB Bulk Projected Cane Sugar, FOB Bulk Refined Cane Sugar, FOB mill
Projection