nl201010k.htm
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
|
Washington, D.C. 20549
|
|
FORM 10-K
|
X ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934 - For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010
|
|
Commission file number 1-640
|
|
NL INDUSTRIES, INC.
|
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
New Jersey
|
13-5267260
|
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
|
(IRS Employer
Identification No.)
|
|
5430 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1700, Dallas, Texas
|
75240-2697
|
(Address of principal executive offices)
|
(Zip Code)
|
|
Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (972) 233-1700
|
|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
|
|
Title of each class
|
Name of each exchange on
which registered
|
Common stock
|
New York Stock Exchange
|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None.
Indicate by check mark:
If the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes No X
If the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes No X
Whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes X No
Whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). * Yes No
·
|
The registrant has not yet been phased into the interactive data requirements.
|
If disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. Yes No X
Whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Large accelerated filer Accelerated filer Non-accelerated filer X Smaller reporting company
Whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes No X
The aggregate market value of the 6.8 million shares of voting stock held by nonaffiliates of NL Industries, Inc. as of June 30, 2010 (the last business day of the Registrant's most recently-completed second fiscal quarter) approximated $42 million.
As of February 28, 2011, 48,656,884 shares of the Registrant's common stock were outstanding.
Documents incorporated by reference
The information required by Part III is incorporated by reference from the Registrant's definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A not later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this report.
PART I
NL Industries, Inc. was organized as a New Jersey corporation in 1891. Our common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange, or the NYSE, under the symbol NL. References to “NL Industries,” “NL,” the “Company,” the “Registrant,” “we,” “our,” “us” and similar terms mean NL Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliate, unless the context otherwise requires.
Our principal executive offices are located at Three Lincoln Center, 5430 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1700, Dallas, TX 75240. Our telephone number is (972) 233-1700. We maintain a website at www.nl-ind.com.
Business Summary
We are primarily a holding company. We operate in the component products industry through our majority-owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. (NYSE Amex: CIX). We operate in the chemicals industry through our non-controlling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc. CompX and Kronos (NYSE: KRO), each file periodic reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
Organization
We are majority-owned by Valhi, Inc. (NYSE: VHI). At December 31, 2010, Valhi owned approximately 83% of our outstanding common stock. Subsidiaries of Contran Corporation owned approximately 94% of Valhi’s outstanding common stock at December 31, 2010. Substantially all of Contran's outstanding voting stock is held by trusts established for the benefit of certain children and grandchildren of Harold C. Simmons (for which Mr. Simmons is the sole trustee) or is held directly by Mr. Simmons or other persons or entities related to Mr. Simmons. Consequently, Mr. Simmons may be deemed to control Contran, Valhi and us.
Forward-looking Statements
This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended. Statements in this Annual Report that are not historical facts are forward-looking in nature and represent management’s beliefs and assumptions based on currently available information. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by the use of words such as "believes," "intends," "may," "should," "could," "anticipates," "expects" or comparable terminology, or by discussions of strategies or trends. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, we do not know if these expectations will be correct. Such statements by their nature involve substantial risks and uncertainties that could significantly impact expected results. Actual future results could differ materially from those predicted. The factors that could cause actual future results to differ materially from those described herein are the risks and uncertainties discussed in this Annual Report and those described from time to time in our other filings with the SEC include, but are not limited to, the following:
·
|
Future supply and demand for our products;
|
·
|
The extent of the dependence of certain of our businesses on certain market sectors;
|
·
|
The cyclicality of our businesses (such as Kronos’ TiO2 operations);
|
·
|
Changes in raw material and other operating costs (such as energy, ore and steel costs)and our ability to pass those costs on to our customers or offset them with reductions in other operating costs;
|
·
|
Changes in the availability of raw material (such as ore)
|
·
|
General global economic and political conditions (such as changes in the level of gross domestic product in various regions of the world and the impact of such changes on demand for, among other things, TiO2 and component products);
|
·
|
Possible disruption of our business or increases in the cost of doing business resulting from terrorist activities or global conflicts;
|
·
|
Competitive products and prices, including increased competition from low-cost manufacturing sources (such as China);
|
·
|
Customer and competitor strategies;
|
·
|
Potential consolidation of Kronos’ competitors;
|
·
|
Demand for office furniture;
|
·
|
The impact of pricing and production decisions;
|
·
|
Competitive technology positions;
|
·
|
Our ability to protect our intellectual property rights in our technology;
|
·
|
The introduction of trade barriers;
|
·
|
Service industry employment levels;
|
·
|
Fluctuations in currency exchange rates (such as changes in the exchange rate between the U.S. dollar and each of the euro, the Norwegian krone, the Canadian dollar and the New Taiwan dollar);
|
·
|
Operating interruptions (including, but not limited to, labor disputes, leaks, natural disasters, fires, explosions, unscheduled or unplanned downtime and transportation interruptions);
|
·
|
The timing and amounts of insurance recoveries,
|
·
|
Our ability to maintain sufficient liquidity;
|
·
|
The extent to which our subsidiaries were to become unable to pay us dividends;
|
·
|
CompX’s and Kronos’ ability to renew or refinance debt;
|
·
|
CompX’s ability to comply with covenants contained in its revolving bank credit facility;
|
·
|
The ultimate outcome of income tax audits, tax settlement initiatives or other tax matters;
|
·
|
Potential difficulties in integrating completed or future acquisitions,
|
·
|
Decisions to sell operating assets other than in the ordinary course of business;
|
·
|
Uncertainties associated with the development of new product features;
|
·
|
Our ability to utilize income tax attributes or changes in income tax rates related to such attributes, the benefits of which have been recognized under the more-likely-than-not recognition criteria;
|
·
|
Environmental matters (such as those requiring compliance with emission and discharge standards for existing and new facilities or new developments regarding environmental remediation at sites related to our former operations);
|
·
|
Government laws and regulations and possible changes therein (such as changes in government regulations which might impose various obligations on present and former manufacturers of lead pigment and lead-based paint, including us, with respect to asserted health concerns associated with the use of such products);
|
·
|
The ultimate resolution of pending litigation (such as our lead pigment and environmental matters); and
|
·
|
Possible future litigation.
|
Should one or more of these risks materialize or if the consequences of such a development worsen, or should the underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results could differ materially from those currently forecasted or expected. We disclaim any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement whether as a result of changes in information, future events or otherwise.
Operations and equity investment
Information regarding our operations and the companies conducting such operations is set forth below. Geographic financial information is included in Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Component Products
CompX International Inc. - 87%
owned at December 31, 2010
|
CompX is a leading manufacturer of security products, precision ball bearing slides and ergonomic computer support systems used in the office furniture, transportation, postal, tool storage, appliance and a variety of other industries. CompX is also a leading manufacturer of stainless steel exhaust systems, gauges and throttle controls for the performance marine industry. CompX has production facilities in North America and Asia.
|
|
|
Chemicals
Kronos Worldwide, Inc. – 30%
owned at December 31, 2010
|
Kronos is a leading global producer and marketer of value-added titanium dioxide pigments, which are used for imparting whiteness, brightness, opacity and durability to a diverse range of customer applications and end-use markets, including coatings, plastics, paper and other industrial and consumer "quality-of-life" products. Kronos has production facilities in Europe and North America. Sales of TiO2 represented about 90% of Kronos’ total sales in 2010, with sales of other products that are complementary to Kronos’ TiO2 business comprising the remainder.
|
COMPONENT PRODUCTS - COMPX INTERNATIONAL INC.
Industry Overview - Through our majority-owned subsidiary, CompX, we manufacture components that are sold to a variety of industries including office furniture, recreational transportation (including performance boats), mailboxes, tool boxes, home appliances, banking equipment, vending equipment and computer-related equipment. While a significant portion of our sales are to the office furniture market (33% in 2010 and 2009 and 36% in 2008), we continuously seek to diversify into new markets and identify new applications and features for our products which we believe provide a greater potential for higher rates of earnings growth as well as diversification of risk.
Manufacturing, Operations and Products – CompX’s Security Products business, with a manufacturing facility in South Carolina and one in Illinois shared with the Marine Components business, manufactures mechanical and electric cabinet locks and other locking mechanisms for sale to the postal, office and institutional furniture, transportation, vending, tool storage, banking, general cabinetry and other industries. We believe that CompX is a North American market leader in the manufacture and sale of cabinet locks and other locking mechanisms. CompX’s security products are used in a variety of applications including ignition systems, mailboxes, file cabinets, desk drawers, tool storage cabinets, vending and gaming machines, high security medical cabinetry, electrical circuit panels, storage compartments, gas station security, bank bags and parking meters. These products include:
·
|
disc tumbler locks which provide moderate security and generally represent the lowest cost lock to produce;
|
·
|
pin tumbler locking mechanisms which are more costly to produce and are used in applications requiring higher levels of security, including our TuBar® and our KeSet® and System 64 high security systems, which allow the user to change the keying on a single lock 64 times without removing the lock from its enclosure; and
|
·
|
innovative eLock electronic locks which provide stand-alone or networked security and audit trail capability for drug storage and other valuables through the use of a proximity card, magnetic stripe or keypad credentials.
|
A substantial portion of CompX’s Security Products sales consist of products with specialized adaptations to an individual manufacturer’s specifications, some of which are listed above. CompX also has a standardized product line suitable for many customers, which is offered through a North American distribution network to lock distributors and to smaller original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”) via its STOCK LOCKS® distribution program.
CompX’s Furniture Components business, with facilities in Canada, Michigan and Taiwan, manufactures a complete line of precision ball bearing slides and ergonomic computer support systems for use in applications such as file cabinets, desk drawers, computer-related equipment, home appliances, tool storage cabinets, imaging equipment, automated teller machines and other applications. These products are manufactured to customer specifications and include:
·
|
the patented Integrated Slide Lock which allows a file cabinet manufacturer to reduce the possibility of multiple drawers being opened at the same time;
|
·
|
the patented adjustable Ball Lock which reduces the risk of heavily-filled drawers, such as auto mechanic tool boxes, from opening while in movement;
|
·
|
the Self-Closing Slide, which is designed to assist in closing a drawer and is used in applications such as bottom-mount freezers;
|
·
|
articulating computer keyboard support arms (designed to attach to desks in the workplace and home office environments to alleviate possible user strains and stress and maximize usable workspace), along with the patented LeverLock keyboard arm, which is designed to make ergonomic adjustments to the keyboard arm easier;
|
·
|
CPU storage devices which minimize adverse effects of dust and moisture;
|
·
|
flat panel computer monitor support systems designed to support one to eight screens which can be adjusted for tilt, swing and rotation to enable achievement of the correct ergonomic position; and
|
·
|
complementary ergonomic accessories, such as ergonomic wrist rest aids and mouse pad supports.
|
CompX’s Marine Components business, with a facility in Wisconsin and a facility shared with the Security Products business in Illinois, manufactures and distributes stainless steel exhaust components, gauges, throttle controls, hardware and accessories primarily for performance boats. CompX’s specialty marine component products are high precision components designed to operate within tight tolerances in the highly demanding marine environment. These products include:
·
|
original equipment and aftermarket stainless steel exhaust headers, exhaust pipes, mufflers and other exhaust components;
|
·
|
high performance gauges such as GPS speedometers and tachometers;
|
·
|
controls, throttles, steering wheels and other billet accessories; and
|
·
|
dash panels, LED lighting, rigging and other accessories.
|
CompX operated six manufacturing facilities at December 31, 2010 including one facility in Grayslake, Illinois that houses operations relating to Security Products and Marine Components.
Security Products
|
|
Furniture Components
|
|
Marine Components
|
Mauldin, SC
Grayslake, IL
|
|
Kitchener, Ontario
Byron Center, MI
Taipei, Taiwan
|
|
Neenah, WI
Grayslake, IL
|
Raw Materials - CompX’s primary raw materials are:
·
|
coiled steel (used in the Furniture Components business for the manufacture of precision ball bearing slides and ergonomic computer support systems);
|
·
|
zinc and brass (used in the Security Products business for the manufacture of locking mechanisms);
|
·
|
stainless steel (used in the Marine Components business for the manufacture of exhaust headers, pipes and other components); and
|
·
|
plastic resins (primarily used in the Furniture Components business for injection molded plastics in the manufacture of ergonomic computer support systems).
|
These raw materials are purchased from several suppliers, are readily available from numerous sources and accounted for approximately 17% of our total cost of sales for 2010.
CompX occasionally enters into supply arrangements for our commodity related raw materials to mitigate the short-term impact of future increases in raw material prices that are affected by commodity markets. While these arrangements do not necessarily commit us to a minimum volume of purchases, they generally provide for stated unit prices based upon achievement of specified purchase volumes which helps us stabilize our commodity related raw material costs. Commodity-related raw materials purchased outside of these arrangements are sometimes subject to unanticipated and sudden price increases. We generally seek to mitigate the impact of fluctuations in these raw material costs on our margins through improvements in production efficiencies or other operating cost reductions. In the event we are unable to offset raw material cost increases with other cost reductions, it may be difficult to recover those cost increases through increased product selling prices or raw material surcharges due to the competitive nature of the markets served by our products. Consequently, overall operating margins can be affected by commodity related raw material cost pressures. Commodity market prices are cyclical, reflecting overall economic trends, specific developments in consuming industries and speculative investor activities.
Patents and Trademarks – CompX holds a number of patents relating to component products, certain of which are believed to be important to its continuing business activity. Patents generally have a term of 20 years, and CompX’s patents have remaining terms ranging from less than one year to 12 years at December 31, 2010. CompX’s major trademarks and brand names include:
Furniture Components
|
|
Security Products
|
|
Marine Components
|
CompX Precision Slides®
|
|
CompX Security Products®
|
|
Custom Marine®
|
CompX Waterloo®
|
|
National Cabinet Lock®
|
|
Livorsi Marine®
|
CompX ErgonomX®
|
|
Fort Lock®
|
|
CMI Industrial Mufflers™
|
CompX DurISLide®
|
|
Timberline®
|
|
Custom Marine Stainless
|
Dynaslide®
|
|
Chicago Lock®
|
|
Exhaust™
|
Waterloo Furniture
|
|
STOCK LOCKS®
|
|
The #1 Choice in
|
Components Limited®
|
|
KeSet®
|
|
Performance Boating®
|
|
|
TuBar®
|
|
Mega Rim™
|
|
|
ACE II®
|
|
Race Rim™
|
|
|
CompX eLock®
|
|
CompX Marine™
|
|
|
Lockview® Software
|
|
|
Sales, marketing and distribution - A majority of CompX’s component sales are direct to large OEM customers through our factory-based sales and marketing professionals supported by engineers working in concert with field salespeople and independent manufacturers' representatives. We select manufacturers' representatives based on special skills in certain markets or relationships with current or potential customers.
A significant portion of CompX’s Security Products sales are made through distributors. We have a significant North American market share of cabinet lock security product sales as a result of the locksmith distribution channel. We support our locksmith distributor sales with a line of standardized products used by the largest segments of the marketplace. These products are packaged and merchandised for easy availability and handling by distributors and end users.
A significant portion of CompX’s Furniture Component ergonomic product sales are made through value-added resellers and distributors. Value-added resellers generally provide services to end-customers in addition to those of a distributor, such as installation services or packaging our products with other products. We support our ergonomic value-added resellers by providing them with products that may be customized or packaged to meet their needs. We support our ergonomic distributor sales with a line of standardized products used by the largest segments of the marketplace. These products are packaged and merchandised for easy availability and handling by distributors and end users.
In 2010, our ten largest customers accounted for approximately 38% of our total sales; however, no one customer accounted for more than 10% of our sales. Of the 38% of total sales, 13% related to two Security Products customers, 12% related to five Furniture Components customers and 13% related to three customers in both Security Products and Furniture Components. Overall, our customer base is diverse and the loss of any single customer would not have a material adverse effect on our operations.
Competition - CompX operates in highly competitive markets, and competes primarily on the basis of product design, including ergonomic and aesthetic factors, product quality and durability, price, on-time delivery, service and technical support. CompX focuses efforts on the middle- and high-end segments of the market, where product design, quality, durability and service are valued by the customer. The Security Products and Furniture Components businesses compete against a number of domestic and non-U.S. manufacturers. CompX’s Marine Components business competes with small domestic manufacturers and is minimally affected by non-U.S. competitors.
International Operations - CompX has substantial operations and assets located outside the United States, principally Furniture Component operations in Canada and Taiwan. The majority of our 2010 non-U.S. sales are to customers located in Canada. These operations are subject to, among other things, currency exchange rate fluctuations. Our results of operations have in the past been both favorably and unfavorably affected by fluctuations in currency exchange rates. Political and economic uncertainties in certain of the countries in which we operate may expose us to risk of loss. We do not believe that there is currently any likelihood of material loss through political or economic instability, seizure, nationalization or a similar event. We cannot predict, however, whether events of this type in the future could have a material adverse effect on our operations. See Item 7 - "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and Item 7A – "Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk."
Regulatory and Environmental Matters - CompX’s operations are subject to federal, state, local and non-U.S. laws and regulations relating to the use, storage, handling, generation, transportation, treatment, emission, discharge, disposal, remediation of and exposure to hazardous and non-hazardous substances, materials and wastes ("Environmental Laws"). CompX’s operations are also subject to federal, state, local and non-U.S. laws and regulations relating to worker health and safety. We believe that CompX is in substantial compliance with all such laws and regulations. To date, the costs of maintaining compliance with such laws and regulations have not significantly impacted our results. We currently do not anticipate any significant costs or expenses relating to such matters; however, it is possible future laws and regulations may require us to incur significant additional expenditures.
Employees - As of December 31, 2010, CompX employed the following number of people:
United States
|
|
|
546 |
|
Canada(1)
|
|
|
208 |
|
Taiwan
|
|
|
74 |
|
Total
|
|
|
828 |
|
(1)
|
Approximately 75% of the Canadian employees are represented by a labor union covered by a collective bargaining agreement that expires in January 2012, which provides for wage increases from 0% to 1% over the term of the contract.
|
We believe our labor relations are good at all of our facilities.
CHEMICALS - KRONOS WORLDWIDE, INC.
Business Overview - Kronos is a leading global producer and marketer of value-added titanium dioxide pigments ("TiO2"), a base industrial product used in a wide range of applications. Kronos, along with its distributors and agents, sells and provides technical services for its products to over 4,000 customers in approximately 100 countries with the majority of sales in Europe and North America. We believe that Kronos has developed considerable expertise and efficiency in the manufacture, sale, shipment and service of its products in domestic and international markets.
TiO2 is a white inorganic pigment used in a wide range of products for its exceptional ability to impart whiteness, brightness, opacity and durability. TiO2 is a critical component of everyday applications, such as coatings, plastics and paper, as well as many specialty products such as inks, food and cosmetics. TiO2 is widely considered to be superior to alternative white pigments in large part due to its hiding power (or opacity), which is the ability to cover or mask other materials effectively and efficiently. TiO2 is designed, marketed and sold based on specific end-use applications.
TiO2 is the largest commercially used whitening pigment because it has a high refractive rating giving it more hiding power than any other commercially produced white pigment. In addition, TiO2 has excellent resistance to interaction with other chemicals, good thermal stability and resistance to ultraviolet degradation. Although there are other white pigments on the market, we believe that there are no effective substitutes for TiO2 because no other white pigment has the physical properties for achieving comparable opacity and brightness or can be incorporated in as cost-effective a manner. Pigment extenders such as kaolin clays, calcium carbonate and polymeric opacifiers are used in a number of end-use markets as white pigments. However, these products are not able to duplicate the opacity performance characteristics of TiO2 and we believe that these products are unlikely to have a significant impact on the use of TiO2.
TiO2 is considered a “quality-of-life” product. Demand for TiO2 has generally been driven by worldwide gross domestic product and has generally increased with rising standards of living in various regions of the world. According to industry estimates, TiO2 consumption, excluding China, has grown at a compound annual growth rate of approximately 2.6% since 1990. Per capita consumption of TiO2 in the United States and Western Europe far exceeds that in other areas of the world, and these regions are expected to continue to be the largest consumers of TiO2. We believe that North America and Western Europe account for approximately 24% and 33% of global TiO2 consumption, respectively. Markets for TiO2 are increasing in South America, Eastern Europe, the Far East and China and we believe that these markets will become significant as economies in these regions continue to develop and quality-of-life products, including TiO2, experience greater demand.
In recent years, global production capacity for TiO2 has modestly increased primarily due to debottlenecking existing chloride production facilities. However, during 2008 and 2009, several TiO2 manufacturers permanently reduced capacity at high operating cost facilities in Europe, North America and China, in part in connection with environmental-related issues. Decreased capacity, along with the decline in customer inventories which occurred in the first half of 2009, led to industry-wide tightness in TiO2 inventories. As a result of these factors, TiO2 selling prices began to increase in the second half of 2009 and continued to increase during 2010. Further increases in TiO2 selling prices are expected to be implemented in 2011. We believe the decreased capacity, higher demand and improved pricing should result in improved operating rates and product margins for TiO2 producers.
Products and End-Use Markets - Kronos, including its predecessors, has produced and marketed TiO2 in North America and Europe, its primary markets, for over 80 years. In Europe and North America, we estimate Kronos’ current market share at 22% and 19%, respectively. We believe that Kronos is the largest producer of TiO2 in Europe with approximately one-half of its sales volumes attributable to markets in Europe. The table below shows Kronos’ market share for our Europe and North America for the last three years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Europe
|
19%
|
19%
|
22%
|
North America
|
16%
|
16%
|
19%
|
We believe that Kronos is the leading seller of TiO2 in several countries, including Germany, with an estimated 14% share of worldwide TiO2 sales volume in 2010. Overall, Kronos is the world’s third-largest producer of TiO2.
Kronos offers customers a broad portfolio of products that include over 40 different TiO2 pigment grades under the Kronos® trademark which provide a variety of performance properties to meet customers’ specific requirements. Kronos’ major customers include domestic and international paint, plastics and paper manufacturers. Kronos ships TiO2 to customers in either a powder or slurry form via rail, truck or ocean carrier. Sales of its core TiO2 pigments represented approximately 90% of Kronos’ net sales in 2010. Kronos and its agents and distributors primarily sell and provide technical services for Kronos products in three major end-use markets: coatings, plastics and paper. The following tables show Kronos’ approximate sales volume by geographic region and end use for the year ending December 31, 2010:
Sales Volumes Percentages
by Geographic Region
|
|
Sales Volumes Percentages
by End Use
|
|
|
|
|
|
Europe
|
53%
|
|
Coatings
|
52%
|
North America
|
33%
|
|
Plastics
|
35%
|
Asia Pacific
|
10%
|
|
Other
|
8%
|
Rest of world
|
4%
|
|
Paper
|
5%
|
Some of the principal applications for Kronos’ products include coatings, plastics and paper.
Kronos produces high purity sulfate process anatase TiO2 used to provide opacity, whiteness and brightness in a variety of cosmetic and personal care products, such as skin cream, lipstick, eye shadow and toothpaste. Our TiO2 is also found in food products, such as candy and confectionaries, and in pet foods where it is used to obtain uniformity of color and appearance. In pharmaceuticals, TiO2 is used commonly as a colorant in pill and capsule coatings as well as in liquid medicines to provide uniformity of color and appearance. Kronos® purified anatase grades meet the applicable requirements of the CTFA (Cosmetics, Toiletries and Fragrances Association), USP and BP (United States Pharmacopoeia and British Pharmacopoeia) and the FDA (United States Food and Drug Administration).
Kronos’ TiO2 business is enhanced by the following three complementary businesses, which comprised approximately 10% of its net sales in 2010:
·
|
Kronos owns and operates two ilmenite mines in Norway pursuant to a governmental concession with an unlimited term. Kronos commenced production from its second mine in 2009. Ilmenite is a raw material used directly as a feedstock by some sulfate-process TiO2 plants. We believe that Kronos has a significant competitive advantage because its mines supply the feedstock requirements for all of its European sulfate-process plants. Kronos also sells ilmenite ore to third-parties, some of which are competitors. The mines have estimated ilmenite reserves that are expected to last at least 60 years.
|
·
|
Kronos manufactures and sells iron-based chemicals, which are co-products and processed co-products of the sulfate and chloride process TiO2 pigment production. These co-product chemicals are marketed through Kronos’ Ecochem division and are primarily used as treatment and conditioning agents for industrial effluents and municipal wastewater as well as for the manufacture of iron pigments, cement and agricultural products.
|
·
|
Kronos manufactures and sells titanium oxychloride and titanyl sulfate, which are side-stream specialty products from the production of TiO2. Titanium oxychloride is used in specialty applications in the formulation of pearlescent pigments, production of electroceramic capacitors for cell phones and other electronic devices. Titanyl sulfate productions are used in pearlescent pigments, natural gas pipe and other specialty applications.
|
Manufacturing, Operations and Properties - Kronos produces TiO2 in two crystalline forms: rutile and anatase. Rutile TiO2 is manufactured using both a chloride production process and a sulfate production process, whereas anatase TiO2 is only produced using a sulfate production process. Many end-use applications can use either form, especially during periods of TiO2 supply tightness such as that in which Kronos is currently experiencing. The chloride process is the preferred form for use in coatings and plastics, the two largest end-use markets. Due to environmental factors and customer considerations, the proportion of TiO2 industry sales represented by chloride process pigments has increased relative to sulfate process pigments and in 2010, chloride process production facilities represented approximately 60% of industry capacity. The sulfate process represents a much smaller percentage of annual global TiO2 production and is preferred for use in selected paper products, ceramics, rubber tires, man-made fibers, food and cosmetics. Once an intermediate TiO2 pigment has been produced by either the chloride or sulfate process, it is “finished” into products with specific performance characteristics for particular end-use applications through proprietary processes involving various chemical surface treatments and intensive micronizing (milling).
·
|
Chloride Process. The chloride process is a continuous process in which chlorine is used to extract rutile TiO2. The chloride process typically has lower manufacturing costs than the sulfate process due to higher yield, less waste, lower energy requirements and lower labor costs. This process has also gained market share over the sulfate process because of the relatively lower upfront capital investment in plant and equipment required. The chloride process produces less waste than the sulfate process because much of the chlorine is recycled and feedstock bearing higher titanium content is used. The chloride process produces an intermediate base pigment with a wide range of properties.
|
·
|
Sulfate Process. The sulfate process is a batch process in which sulfuric acid is used to extract the TiO2 from ilmenite or titanium slag. After separation from the impurities in the ore (mainly iron) the TiO2 is precipitated and calcined to form an intermediate base pigment ready for sale or can be upgraded through finishing treatment.
|
Kronos produced 524,000 metric tons of TiO2 in 2010, up from the 402,000 metric tons produced in 2009. Such production amounts include its 50% interest in the TiO2 manufacturing joint-venture discussed below. Kronos’ average production capacity utilization rates were near full capacity in 2008 and 2010 and approximately 76% in 2009. In late 2008, and as a result of the sharp decline in global demand, Kronos experienced a build up in inventory levels. In order to decrease inventory levels and improve liquidity, Kronos implemented production curtailments during the first half of 2009. Consequently, Kronos’ average production capacity utilization rates were approximately 58% during the first half of 2009 as compared to 94% during the second half of 2009.
Kronos operates four TiO2 plants in Europe (one in each of Leverkusen, Germany; Nordenham, Germany; Langerbrugge, Belgium; and Fredrikstad, Norway). In North America, Kronos has a TiO2 plant in Varennes, Quebec, Canada and, through the manufacturing joint venture described below, a 50% interest in a TiO2 plant in Lake Charles, Louisiana.
Kronos’ production capacity in 2010 was 532,000 metric tons, approximately three-fourths of which was from the chloride production process. The following table presents the division of Kronos’ 2010 manufacturing capacity by plant location and type of manufacturing process:
|
|
|
% of Capacity by TiO2 Manufacturing Process
|
|
Facility
|
Description
|
|
Chloride
|
|
|
Sulfate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leverkusen, Germany (1)
|
TiO2 production, chloride and sulfate process, co-products
|
|
|
41 |
% |
|
|
26 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nordenham, Germany
|
TiO2 production, sulfate process, co-products
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Langerbrugge, Belgium
|
TiO2 production, chloride process, co-products, titanium chemicals products
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fredrikstad, Norway (2)
|
TiO2 production, sulfate process, co-products
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varennes, Canada
|
TiO2 production, chloride and sulfate process, slurry facility, titanium chemicals products
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lake Charles, Louisiana (3)
|
TiO2 production, chloride process
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
100 |
% |
|
(1)
|
The Leverkusen facility is located within an extensive manufacturing complex owned by Bayer AG. Kronos owns the Leverkusen facility, which represents about one-third of its current TiO2 production capacity, but it leases the land under the facility from Bayer under a long-term agreement which expires in 2050. Lease payments are periodically negotiated with Bayer for periods of at least two years at a time. Bayer or its affiliates provides some raw materials, including chlorine, auxiliary and operating materials, utilities and services necessary to operate the Leverkusen facility under separate supplies and services agreements.
|
|
(2)
|
The Fredrikstad plant is located on public land and is leased until April 2013 with an option to extend the lease for an additional 50 years.
|
|
(3)
|
Kronos operates this facility in a 50/50 joint venture with Tioxide Americas Inc., a subsidiary of Huntsman Corporation.
|
Kronos owns the land underlying all of its principle production facilities unless otherwise indicated in the table above.
Kronos’ production capacity has increased by approximately 30% over the past ten years due to debottlenecking programs, with only moderate capital expenditures. We believe that Kronos’ annual attainable production capacity for 2011 is approximately 532,000 metric tons and we currently expect that Kronos will operate at near full production capacity for the year.
Kronos also operates two ilmenite mines in Norway pursuant to a governmental concession with an unlimited term. In addition, Kronos operates a rutile slurry manufacturing plant in Lake Charles, Louisiana, which converts dry pigment manufactured at the Lake Charles TiO2 facility into a slurry form that is then shipped to customers.
Kronos has various corporate and administrative offices located in the U.S., Germany, Norway, Canada and Belgium and various sales offices located in the U.S., Canada, Belgium, France, the Netherlands and the U.K.
TiO2 Manufacturing Joint Venture - Kronos and a subsidiary of Huntsman Corporation each hold a 50% interest in a manufacturing joint venture, Louisiana Pigment Company, L.P. (LPC). LPC owns and operates a chloride process TiO2 facility located in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Kronos shares production from the plant equally with Huntsman pursuant to separate offtake agreements.
A supervisory committee directs the business and affairs of LPC, including production and output decisions. This committee is composed of four members, two of whom Kronos appoints and two of whom Huntsman appoints. Two general managers manage the operations of LPC acting under the direction of the supervisory committee. Kronos appoints one general manager and Huntsman appoints the other.
Kronos is required to purchase one-half of the TiO2 produced by LPC. LPC is not consolidated in Kronos’ financial statements, because Kronos does not control it. Kronos accounts for its interest in the LPC by the equity method. LPC operates on a break-even basis and therefore Kronos does not have any equity in earnings of the joint venture. Kronos shares all costs and capital expenditures equally with Huntsman with the exception of raw material and packaging costs for the pigment grades produced. Kronos’ share of net costs is reported as cost of sales as the TiO2 is sold.
Raw Materials - The primary raw materials used in chloride process TiO2 are titanium-containing feedstock (natural rutile ore or purchased slag), chlorine and coke. Chlorine is available from a number of suppliers, while petroleum coke is available from a limited number of suppliers. Titanium-containing feedstock suitable for use in the chloride process is available from a limited but increasing number of suppliers principally in Australia, South Africa, Canada, India and the United States. Kronos purchases chloride process grade slag from Rio Tinto Iron and Titanium under a long-term supply contract that expires at the end of 2011 and from Exxaro TSA Sands (PTY) LTD under a supply contract that expires in December 2013. Kronos purchases upgraded slag from Q.I.T. Fer et Titane Inc. (a subsidiary of Rio Tinto Iron and Titanium) under a long-term supply contract that expires at the end of 2015. Kronos purchases natural rutile ore primarily from Iluka Resources, Limited under contracts that expire at the end of 2011. In the past Kronos has been, and expects to continue to be successful in obtaining long-term extensions to these and other existing supply contracts prior to their expiration. Kronos expects the raw materials purchased under these contracts to meet its chloride process feedstock requirements over the next several years.
The primary raw materials used in sulfate process TiO2 are titanium-containing feedstock, primarily ilmenite or purchased sulfate grade slag and sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid is available from a number of suppliers. Titanium-containing feedstock suitable for use in the sulfate process is available from a limited number of suppliers principally in Norway, Canada, Australia, India and South Africa. As one of the few vertically-integrated producers of sulfate process TiO2, Kronos operates two rock ilmenite mines in Norway, which provided all of the feedstock for its European sulfate process TiO2 plants in 2010. Kronos expects ilmenite production from its mines to meet its European sulfate process feedstock requirements for the foreseeable future. For its Canadian sulfate process plant, Kronos also purchases sulfate grade slag primarily from Q.I.T. Fer et Titane Inc. (a subsidiary of Rio Tinto Iron and Titanium), under a long-term supply contract that expires at the end of 2014. Kronos expects the raw materials purchased under these contracts to meet its sulfate process feedstock requirements over the next several years.
Many of Kronos’ raw material contracts contain fixed quantities it is required to purchase, although these contracts allow for an upward or downward adjustment in the quantity purchased. The pricing under these agreements is generally negotiated annually.
The following table summarizes our raw materials purchased or mined in 2010.
Production Process/Raw Material
|
Raw Materials Procured or Mined
|
|
(In thousands of metric tons)
|
|
|
Chloride process plants:
|
|
Purchased slag or natural rutile ore
|
439
|
|
|
Sulfate process plants:
|
|
Ilmenite ore mined and used internally
|
328
|
Purchased slag
|
31
|
Sales and Marketing – Kronos’ marketing strategy is aimed at developing and maintaining strong customer relationships with new and existing accounts. Because TiO2 represents a significant raw material cost for Kronos’ customers, the purchasing decisions are often made by customers’ senior management. Kronos works to maintain close relationships with the key decision makers, through in-depth frequent in-person meetings. Kronos endeavors to extend these commercial and technical relationships to multiple levels within its customers’ organization by using its direct sales force and technical service group. We believe this has helped build customer loyalty to Kronos and strengthen its competitive position. Close cooperation and strong customer relationships enable Kronos to stay closely attuned to trends in customers’ businesses. Where appropriate, Kronos works in conjunction with customers to solve formulation or application problems by modifying specific product properties or developing new pigment grades. Kronos also focuses its sales and marketing efforts on those geographic and end-use market segments where Kronos believes it can realize higher selling prices. This focus includes continuously reviewing and optimizing customer and product portfolios.
Kronos sells to a diverse customer base and no single customer made up more than 10% of its sales for 2010. Kronos’ largest ten customers accounted for approximately 27% of sales in 2010.
Neither Kronos’ business as a whole nor that of any of its principal product groups is seasonal to any significant extent. However, TiO2 sales are generally higher in the second and third quarters of the year, due in part to the increase in paint production in the spring to meet demand during the spring and summer painting seasons. Kronos has historically operated its production facilities at near full capacity rates throughout the entire year, which among other things helps to minimize per-unit production costs. As a result, Kronos normally will build inventories during the first and fourth quarters of each year, in order to maximize product availability during the higher demand periods normally experienced in the second and third quarters.
Competition – The TiO2 industry is highly competitive. Kronos competes primarily on the basis of price, product quality, technical service and the availability of high performance pigment grades. Since TiO2 is not a traded commodity, its pricing is largely a product of negotiation between suppliers and their respective customers. Although certain TiO2 grades are considered specialty pigments, the majority of Kronos’ grades and substantially all of its production are considered commodity pigments with price and availability being the most significant competitive factors along with quality and customer service. During 2010, Kronos had an estimated 14% share of worldwide TiO2 sales volume, and based on sales volumes, we believe that Kronos is the leading seller of TiO2 in several countries, including Germany.
Kronos’ principal competitors are E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., or Dupont; Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc. (a subsidiary of National Titanium Dioxide Company Ltd.), or Cristal; Huntsman Corporation; Tronox Incorporated; and Sachtleben Chemie GmbH. The top five TiO2 producers account for approximately 63% of the world’s production capacity. The following chart shows our estimate of worldwide production capacity in 2010:
Worldwide Production Capacity - 2010
|
|
DuPont
|
|
|
23 |
% |
Cristal
|
|
|
14 |
% |
Kronos
|
|
|
10 |
% |
Huntsman
|
|
|
9 |
% |
Tronox
|
|
|
7 |
% |
Other
|
|
|
37 |
% |
DuPont has over one-half of total North American TiO2 production capacity and is Kronos’ principal North American competitor. Tronox filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in January 2009, and continued to operate as a debtor-in-possession until February 2011, at which time it emerged from Chapter 11. It remains unclear to what extent Tronox will compete in the TiO2 industry at the conclusion of Tronox’s bankruptcy proceedings.
Over the past ten years, Kronos and its competitors have increased industry capacity through debottlenecking projects, which in part compensated for the shutdown of TiO2 plants in France, the United States and China. Although overall industry pigment demand is expected to be higher in 2011 as compared to 2010 as a result of improving worldwide economic conditions, we do not expect any significant efforts will be undertaken by Kronos or its competitors to further increase capacity for the foreseeable future, other than through debottlenecking projects. If actual developments differ from our expectations, Kronos’ and the TiO2 industry’s performance could be unfavorably affected.
The TiO2 industry is characterized by high barriers to entry consisting of high capital costs, proprietary technology and significant lead times (typically three to five years in our experience) required to construct new facilities or to expand existing capacity. In addition, we believe the suppliers of titanium-containing feedstock do not currently have the ability to supply the raw materials that would be required to operate any such new TiO2 production capacity until they have invested in additional infrastructure required to expand their own production capacity, which we believe will take a few years to complete. We are not aware of any TiO2 plants currently under construction and we believe it is unlikely any new plants will be constructed in Europe or North America in the foreseeable future.
Research and Development – Kronos employs scientists, chemists, process engineers and technicians who are engaged in research and development, process technology and quality assurance activities in Leverkusen, Germany. These individuals have the responsibility for improving chloride and sulfate production processes, improving product quality and strengthening Kronos’ competitive position by developing new applications. Kronos’ expenditures for these activities were approximately $12 million in each of 2008 and 2009 and $13 million in 2010. Kronos expects to spend $18 million to $20 million on research and development in 2011.
Kronos continually seeks to improve the quality of its grades and has been successful at developing new grades for existing and new applications to meet the needs of its customers and increase product life cycles. Since 2005, Kronos has added four new grades for plastics and coatings.
Patents, Trademarks, Trade Secrets and Other Intellectual Property Rights - Kronos has a comprehensive intellectual property protection strategy that includes obtaining, maintaining and enforcing its patents, primarily in the United States, Canada and Europe. Kronos also protects its trademark and trade secret rights and has entered into license agreements with third parties concerning various intellectual property matters. Kronos has also from time to time been involved in disputes over intellectual property.
Patents - Kronos has obtained patents and has numerous patent applications pending that cover its products and the technology used in the manufacture of its products. Kronos’ patent strategy is important to Kronos and its continuing business activities. In addition to maintaining its patent portfolio, Kronos seeks patent protection for its technical developments, principally in the United States, Canada and Europe. U.S. patents are generally in effect for 20 years from the date of filing. Kronos’ U.S. patent portfolio includes patents having remaining terms ranging from one year to 20 years.
Trademarks and Trade Secrets – Kronos’ trademarks, including Kronos®, are covered by issued and or pending registrations, including in Canada and the United States. Kronos protects the marks that it uses in connection with the products it manufactures and sells and has developed goodwill in connection with the long-term use of its trademarks. Kronos conducts research activities in secret and it protects the confidentiality of its trade secrets through reasonable measures, including confidentiality agreements and security procedures. Kronos relies upon unpatented proprietary knowledge and continuing technological innovation and other trade secrets to develop and maintain its competitive position. Kronos’ proprietary chloride production process is an important part of its technology and its business could be harmed if Kronos fails to maintain confidentiality of its trade secrets used in this technology.
Employees - As of December 31, 2010, Kronos employed the following number of people:
Europe
|
|
|
2,000 |
|
Canada
|
|
|
400 |
|
United States (1)
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2,440 |
|
(1)
|
Excludes employees of Kronos’ Louisiana joint venture.
|
The employees at each of Kronos’ production facilities are organized by labor unions. In Europe, union employees are covered by master collective bargaining agreements for the chemical industry that are generally renewed annually. In Canada, Kronos’ union employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement that expires in 2013.
Regulatory and environmental matters – Kronos’ operations and properties are governed by various environmental laws and regulations, which are complex, change frequently and have tended to become stricter over time. These environmental laws govern, among other things, the generation, storage, handling, use and transportation of hazardous materials; the emission and discharge of hazardous materials into the ground, air or water; and the health and safety of employees. Certain of Kronos’ operations are, or have been, engaged in the generation, storage, handling, manufacture or use of substances or compounds that may be considered toxic or hazardous within the meaning of applicable environmental laws and regulations. As with other companies engaged in similar businesses, certain of Kronos’ past and current operations and products have the potential to cause environmental or other damage. Kronos has implemented and continues to implement various policies and programs in an effort to minimize these risks. Kronos’ policy is to comply with applicable environmental laws and regulations at all of its facilities and to strive to improve environmental performance. It is possible that future developments, such as stricter requirements in environmental laws and enforcement policies, could adversely affect Kronos’ operations, including production, handling, use, storage, transportation, sale or disposal of hazardous or toxic substances or require Kronos to make capital and other expenditures to comply, and could adversely affect its consolidated financial position and results of operations or liquidity.
Kronos’ U.S. manufacturing operations are governed by federal, state and local environmental and worker health and safety laws and regulations. These include the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, or CERCLA, as well as the state counterparts of these statutes. Some of these laws hold current or previous owners or operators of real property liable for the costs of cleaning up contamination, even if these owners or operators did not know of, and were not responsible for, such contamination. These laws also assess liability on any person who arranges for the disposal or treatment of hazardous substances, regardless of whether the affected site is owned or operated by such person. Although Kronos has not incurred and does not currently anticipate any material liabilities in connection with such environmental laws, it may be required to make expenditures for environmental remediation in the future.
While the laws regulating operations of industrial facilities in Europe vary from country to country, a common regulatory framework is provided by the European Union, or the EU. Germany and Belgium are members of the EU and follow its initiatives. Norway is not a member but generally patterns its environmental regulatory actions after the EU.
At Kronos’ sulfate plant facilities in Germany, it recycles spent sulfuric acid either through contracts with third parties or at its own facilities. In addition, at Kronos’ German locations it has a contract with a third party to treat certain sulfate-process effluents. At its Norwegian plant, Kronos ships spent acid to a third party location where it is used as a neutralization agent. These contracts may be terminated by either party after giving three or four years advance notice, depending on the contract.
From time to time, Kronos’ facilities may be subject to environmental regulatory enforcement under U.S. and non-U.S. statutes. Typically Kronos establishes compliance programs to resolve these matters. Occasionally, Kronos may pay penalties. To date such penalties have not involved amounts having a material adverse effect on Kronos’ consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. We believe that all of Kronos’ facilities are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws.
In December 2006, the EU approved Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals, or REACH, which took effect on June 1, 2007 and will be phased in over an 11-year period from the implementation date. Under REACH, companies that manufacture or import more than one ton of a chemical substance per year in the EU will be required to register such chemical substances in a central database. REACH affects Kronos’ European operations by imposing a testing, evaluation and registration program for many of the chemicals it uses or produces in Europe. Under REACH, substances of very high concern may require authorization for further use and may also be restricted in the future, which could increase Kronos’ production costs. Kronos has established a REACH team that is working to identify and list all substances purchased, manufactured or imported by or for Kronos in the EU. Kronos spent $.5 million in 2008, $.7 million in 2009 and $2.6 million in 2010 on REACH compliance and does not anticipate that future compliance costs will be material.
Kronos’ capital expenditures related to ongoing environmental compliance, protection and improvement programs in 2010 were $20 million, and are currently expected to be approximately $21 million in 2011.
OTHER
In addition to our 87% ownership of CompX and our 30% ownership of Kronos at December 31, 2010, we also own 100% of EWI RE, Inc., an insurance brokerage and risk management services company. We also hold certain marketable securities and other investments. See Notes 3 and 17 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Regulatory and environmental matters – We discuss regulatory and environmental matters in the respective business sections contained elsewhere herein and in Item 3 - "Legal Proceedings." In addition, the information included in Note 19 to the Consolidated Financial Statements under the captions "Lead pigment litigation" and "Environmental matters and litigation" is incorporated herein by reference.
Insurance – We maintain insurance for our businesses and operations, with customary levels of coverage, deductibles and limits. See also Item 3 – “Legal Proceedings – Insurance coverage claims” and Note 17 to our Consolidated Financial Statements.
Business Strategy – We routinely compare our liquidity requirements and alternative uses of capital against the estimated future cash flows we expect to receive from our subsidiaries and affiliates. As a result of this process, we have in the past and may in the future seek to raise additional capital, incur debt, repurchase indebtedness in the market or otherwise, modify our dividend policies, consider the sale of our interests in our subsidiaries, affiliates, business units, marketable securities or other assets, or take a combination of these and other steps, to increase liquidity, reduce indebtedness and fund future activities. Such activities have in the past and may in the future involve related companies. From time to time, we also evaluate the restructuring of ownership interests among our respective subsidiaries and related companies.
We and other entities that may be deemed to be controlled by or that are affiliated with Mr. Harold C. Simmons routinely evaluate acquisitions of interests in, or combinations with, companies, including related companies, perceived by management to be undervalued in the marketplace. These companies may or may not be engaged in businesses related to our current businesses. In some instances, we have actively managed the businesses acquired with a focus on maximizing return-on-investment through cost reductions, capital expenditures, improved operating efficiencies, selective marketing to address market niches, disposition of marginal operations, use of leverage and redeployment of capital to more productive assets. In other instances, we have disposed of the acquired interest in a company prior to gaining control. We intend to consider such activities in the future and may, in connection with such activities, consider issuing additional equity securities and increasing our indebtedness.
Available information – Our fiscal year ends December 31. We furnish our shareholders with annual reports containing audited financial statements. In addition, we file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy and information statements and other information with the SEC. Our consolidated subsidiary (CompX) and our significant equity method investee (Kronos) also file annual, quarterly, and current reports, proxy and information statements and other information with the SEC. We also make our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments thereto, available free of charge through our website at www.nl-ind.com as soon as reasonably practicable after they have been filed with the SEC. We also provide to anyone, without charge, copies of such documents upon written request. Such requests should be directed to the attention of the Corporate Secretary at our address on the cover page of this Form 10-K.
Additional information, including our Audit Committee charter, our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and our Corporate Governance Guidelines can be found on our website. Information contained on our website is not part of this Annual Report.
The general public may read and copy any materials we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. The public may obtain information about the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. We are an electronic filer. The SEC maintains an internet website at www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC, including us.
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
Listed below are certain risk factors associated with us and our businesses. In addition to the potential effect of these risk factors discussed below, any risk factor which could result in reduced earnings or operating losses, or reduced liquidity, could in turn adversely affect our ability to service our liabilities or pay dividends on our common stock or adversely affect the quoted market prices for our securities.
We could incur significant costs related to legal and environmental matters.
We formerly manufactured lead pigments for use in paint. We and others have been named as defendants in various legal proceedings seeking damages for personal injury, property damage and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paints. These lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of theories, including public and private nuisance, negligent product design, negligent failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of action, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or risk contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and misrepresentation, violations of state consumer protection statutes, supplier negligence and similar claims. The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for educational programs. As with all legal proceedings, the outcome is uncertain. Any liability we might incur in the future could be material. See also Item 3 - “Legal Proceedings – Lead pigment litigation.”
Certain properties and facilities used in our former operations are the subject of litigation, administrative proceedings or investigations arising under various environmental laws. These proceedings seek cleanup costs, personal injury or property damages and/or damages for injury to natural resources. Some of these proceedings involve claims for substantial amounts. Environmental obligations are difficult to assess and estimate for numerous reasons, and we may incur costs for environmental remediation in the future in excess of amounts currently estimated. Any liability we might incur in the future could be material. See also Item 3 - “Legal Proceedings – Environmental matters and litigation.”
Our assets consist primarily of investments in our operating subsidiaries and affiliates, and we are dependent upon distributions from our subsidiaries and affiliates.
The majority of our operating cash flows are generated by our operating subsidiaries, and our ability to service liabilities and to pay dividends on our common stock depends to a large extent upon the cash dividends or other distributions we receive from our subsidiaries and affiliates. Our subsidiaries and affiliates are separate and distinct legal entities and they have no obligation, contingent or otherwise, to pay such cash dividends or other distributions to us. In addition, the payment of dividends or other distributions from our subsidiaries could be subject to restrictions on, or taxation of, dividends or repatriation of earnings under applicable law, monetary transfer restrictions, currency exchange regulations in jurisdictions in which our subsidiaries operate or any other restrictions imposed by current or future agreements to which our subsidiaries may be a party, including debt instruments. Events beyond our control, including changes in general business and economic conditions, could adversely impact the ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends or make other distributions to us. If our subsidiaries were to become unable to make sufficient cash dividends or other distributions to us, our ability to service our liabilities and to pay dividends on our common stock could be adversely affected.
In addition, a significant portion of our assets consist of ownership interests in our subsidiaries and affiliates. If we were required to liquidate any of such securities in order to generate funds to satisfy our liabilities, we may be required to sell such securities at a time or times at which we would not be able to realize what we believe to be the actual value of such assets.
Many of the markets in which we operate are mature and highly competitive resulting in pricing pressure and the need to continuously reduce costs.
Many of the markets CompX serves are highly competitive, with a number of competitors offering similar products. CompX focuses efforts on the middle and high-end segment of the market where we feel that we can compete due to the importance of product design, quality and durability to the customer. However, our ability to effectively compete is impacted by a number of factors. The occurrence of any of these factors could result in reduced earnings or operating losses.
·
|
Competitors may be able to drive down prices for our products because their costs are lower than our costs, especially products sourced from Asia.
|
·
|
Competitors' financial, technological and other resources may be greater than our resources, which may enable them to more effectively withstand changes in market conditions.
|
·
|
Competitors may be able to respond more quickly than we can to new or emerging technologies and changes in customer requirements.
|
·
|
Consolidation of our competitors or customers in any of the markets in which we compete may result in reduced demand for our products.
|
·
|
New competitors could emerge by modifying their existing production facilities to manufacture products that compete with our products.
|
·
|
We may not be able to sustain a cost structure that enables us to be competitive.
|
·
|
Customers may no longer value our product design, quality or durability over the lower cost products of our competitors.
|
Sales for certain precision slides and ergonomic products are concentrated in the office furniture industry, which has periodically experienced significant reductions in demand that could result in reduced earnings or operating losses.
Sales of CompX’s products to the office furniture manufacturing industry accounted for approximately 33% in each of 2010 and 2009 and 36% in 2008 of our net sales. The future growth, if any, of the office furniture industry will be affected by a variety of macroeconomic factors, such as service industry employment levels, corporate cash flows and non-residential commercial construction, as well as industry factors such as corporate reengineering and restructuring, technology demands, ergonomic, health and safety concerns and corporate relocations. There can be no assurance that current or future economic or industry trends will not have a material adverse effect on our business.
Our failure to enter into new markets would result in the continued significant impact of fluctuations in office furniture market demand on our operating results.
In an effort to reduce CompX’s dependence on the office furniture market for certain products and to increase participation in other markets, we have been devoting resources to identify new customers and develop new applications for our products in markets outside of the office furniture market, such as home appliances, toolboxes and server racks. Developing these new applications for our products involves substantial risk and uncertainties due to our limited experience with customers and applications in these markets as well as facing competitors who are already established in these markets. CompX may not be successful in developing new customers or applications for its products outside of the office furniture industry. Significant time may be required to develop new applications and uncertainty exists as to the extent to which we will face competition in this regard.
Our development of innovative features for our current component products is critical to sustaining and growing our sales.
Historically, CompX’s ability to provide value-added custom engineered component products that address requirements of technology and space utilization has been a key element of its success. We spend a significant amount of time and effort to refine, improve and adapt our existing products for new customers and applications. Since expenditures for these types of activities are not considered research and development expense under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the amount of our research and development expenditures, which is not significant, is not indicative of the overall effort involved in the development of new product features. The introduction of new products and features requires the coordination of the design, manufacturing and marketing of such products with potential customers. The ability to coordinate these activities may be affected by factors beyond CompX’s control. While we will continue to emphasize the introduction of innovative new product features that target customer-specific opportunities, we cannot assure you that any new products CompX introduces will achieve the same degree of success that it has achieved with its existing products. Introduction of new products typically requires us to increase production volume on a timely basis while maintaining product quality. Manufacturers often encounter difficulties in increasing production volumes, including delays, quality control problems and shortages of qualified personnel. As CompX attempts to introduce new product features in the future, we cannot assure you that CompX will be able to increase production volume without encountering these or other problems, which might negatively impact our financial condition or results of operations.
Demand for, and prices of, certain of Kronos’ products are influenced by changing market conditions for its products, which may result in reduced earnings or operating losses.
A significant portion of our net income is attributable to sales of TiO2 by Kronos. Approximately 90% of Kronos’ revenues are attributable to sales of TiO2. Pricing within the global TiO2 industry over the long term is cyclical, and changes in economic conditions, especially in Western industrialized nations, can significantly impact Kronos’ earnings and operating cash flows. Historically, the markets for many of Kronos’ products have experienced alternating periods of increasing and decreasing demand. Relative changes in the selling prices for Kronos’ products are one of the main factors that affect the level of its profitability. In periods of increasing demand, Kronos’ selling prices and profit margins generally will tend to increase, while in periods of decreasing demand Kronos’ selling prices and profit margins generally tend to decrease. In addition, pricing may affect customer inventory levels as customers may from time to time accelerate purchases of TiO2 in advance of anticipated price increases or defer purchases of TiO2 in advance of anticipated price decreases. Kronos’ ability to further increase capacity without additional investment in greenfield or brownfield capacity increases may be limited and as a result, Kronos’ profitability may become even more dependent upon the selling prices of its products.
The demand for TiO2 during a given year is also subject to annual seasonal fluctuations. TiO2 sales are generally higher in the second and third quarters of the year. This is due in part to the increase in paint production in the spring to meet demand during the spring and summer painting season.
The TiO2 industry is concentrated and highly competitive and Kronos faces price pressures in the markets in which it operates, which may result in reduced earnings or operating losses.
The global market in which Kronos operates is concentrated, with the top five TiO2 producers accounting for 63% of the world’s production capacity and is highly competitive. Competition is based on a number of factors, such as price, product quality and service. Some of Kronos’ competitors may be able to drive down prices for its products because their costs are lower than Kronos’ costs. In addition, some of the competitors’ financial, technological and other resources may be greater than Kronos’ resources and such competitors may be better able to withstand changes in market conditions. Kronos’ competitors may be able to respond more quickly to new or emerging technologies and changes in customer requirements. Further, consolidation of competitors or customers may result in reduced demand for Kronos’ products or make it more difficult for Kronos to compete with competitors. The occurrence of any of these events could result in reduced earnings or operating losses.
Higher costs or limited availability of our raw materials may decrease our liquidity.
Certain of the raw materials used in CompX’s products are commodities that are subject to significant fluctuations in price in response to worldwide supply and demand. Coiled steel is the major raw material used in the manufacture of precision ball bearing slides and ergonomic computer support systems. Plastic resins for injection molded plastics are also an integral material for ergonomic computer support systems. Zinc and brass are the principal raw materials used in the manufacture of security products. Stainless steel tubing is the major raw material used in the manufacture of marine exhaust systems. These raw materials are purchased from several suppliers and are generally readily available from numerous sources. CompX occasionally enters into raw material supply arrangements to mitigate the short-term impact of future increases in commodity raw material costs. Materials purchased outside of these arrangements are sometimes subject to unanticipated and sudden price increases. Should our vendors not be able to meet their contractual obligations or should we be otherwise unable to obtain necessary raw materials, we may incur higher costs for raw materials or may be required to reduce production levels, either of which may decrease our liquidity as we may be unable to offset the higher costs with increases in our selling prices or reductions in other operating costs.
For Kronos, the number of sources for and availability of certain raw materials is specific to the particular geographical region in which a facility is located. For example, titanium-containing feedstocks suitable for use in its TiO2 facilities are available from a limited number of suppliers around the world. Political and economic instability in the countries from which Kronos purchases raw material supplies could adversely affect their availability. If Kronos’ worldwide vendors were unable to meet their contractual obligations and it was unable to obtain necessary raw materials, Kronos could incur higher costs for raw materials or may be required to reduce production levels. In addition, Kronos may also experience higher operating costs such as energy costs, which could affect its profitability. Kronos may not always be able to increase selling prices to offset the impact of any higher costs or reduced production levels, which could reduce its earnings and decrease our liquidity.
Kronos has long-term supply contracts that provide for its TiO2 feedstock requirements that currently expire through 2015, some of which it may be able to renew. Kronos may not be successful in renewing these contracts or in obtaining long-term extensions to these contracts prior to expiration. The agreements require Kronos to purchase certain minimum quantities of feedstock with minimum purchase commitments aggregating approximately $592 million at December 31, 2010. In addition, Kronos has other long-term supply and service contracts that provide for various raw materials and services. These agreements require Kronos to purchase certain minimum quantities or services with minimum purchase commitments aggregating approximately $132 million at December 31, 2010. Kronos’ commitments under these contracts could adversely affect its financial results if it significantly reduced production and was unable to modify the contractual commitments.
Recent and future acquisitions could subject us to a number of operational risks.
A key component of CompX’s strategy is to grow and diversify its business through acquisitions. Our ability to successfully execute this component of our strategy entails a number of risks, including:
·
|
the identification of suitable growth opportunities;
|
·
|
an inaccurate assessment of acquired liabilities;
|
·
|
the entry into markets in which we may have limited or no experience;
|
·
|
the diversion of management’s attention from our core businesses;
|
·
|
the potential loss of key employees or customers of the acquired businesses;
|
·
|
difficulties in realizing projected efficiencies, synergies and cost savings and
|
·
|
an increase in our indebtedness and a limitation in our ability to access additional capital when needed.
|
Kronos’ leverage may impair our financial condition or limit our ability to operate our businesses.
As of December 31, 2010, Kronos had consolidated debt of approximately $539.6 million, which relates primarily to senior secured notes. Kronos’ level of debt could have important consequences to its stockholders (including us) and creditors, including:
·
|
making it more difficult for Kronos to satisfy its obligations with respect to its liabilities;
|
·
|
increasing its vulnerability to adverse general economic and industry conditions;
|
·
|
requiring that a portion of Kronos’ cash flows from operations be used for the payment of interest on its debt, which reduces its ability to use cash flow to fund working capital, capital expenditures, dividends on our common stock, acquisitions or general corporate requirements;
|
·
|
limiting its ability to obtain additional financing to fund future working capital, capital expenditures, dividends on its common stock, acquisitions or general corporate requirements;
|
·
|
limiting its flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in Kronos’ business and the industry in which it operates and
|
·
|
placing it at a competitive disadvantage relative to other less leveraged competitors.
|
In addition to Kronos’ indebtedness, Kronos is party to various lease and other agreements pursuant to which it is committed to pay approximately $392 million in 2011. Kronos’ ability to make payments on and refinance its debt, and to fund planned capital expenditures, depends on Kronos’ future ability to generate cash flow. To some extent, this is subject to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors that are beyond our control. In addition, Kronos’ ability to borrow funds under its subsidiaries’ credit facilities in the future will in some instances depend in part on these subsidiaries’ ability to maintain specified financial ratios and satisfy certain financial covenants contained in the applicable credit agreement.
Kronos’ business may not generate cash flows from operating activities sufficient to enable Kronos to pay its debts when they become due and to fund other liquidity needs. As a result, Kronos may need to refinance all or a portion of its debt before maturity. Kronos may not be able to refinance any of its debt in a timely manner on favorable terms, if at all in the current credit markets. Any inability to generate sufficient cash flows or to refinance Kronos’ debt on favorable terms could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.
Failure to protect our intellectual property rights or claims by others that we infringe their intellectual property rights could substantially harm our business.
CompX relies on patent, trademark and trade secret laws in the United States and similar laws in other countries to establish and maintain intellectual property rights in our technology and designs. Despite these measures, any of our intellectual property rights could be challenged, invalidated, circumvented or misappropriated. Others may independently discover our trade secrets and proprietary information, and in such cases we could not assert any trade secret rights against such parties. Further, there can be no assurance that any of our pending trademark or patent applications will be approved. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our intellectual property rights. In addition, the laws of certain countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Therefore, in certain jurisdictions, we may be unable to protect our technology and designs adequately against unauthorized third party use, which could adversely affect our competitive position.
Third parties may claim that we or our customers are infringing upon their intellectual property rights. Even if we believe that such claims are without merit, they can be time-consuming and costly to defend and distract our management and technical staff’s attention and resources. Claims of intellectual property infringement also might require us to redesign affected technology, enter into costly settlement or license agreements or pay costly damage awards, or face a temporary or permanent injunction prohibiting us from marketing or selling certain of our technology. If we cannot or do not license the infringed technology on reasonable pricing terms or at all, or substitute similar technology from another source, our business could be adversely impacted.
Global climate change legislation could negatively impact our financial results or limit our ability to operate our businesses.
Kronos and CompX operate production facilities in several countries. We believe all of our worldwide production facilities are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws. In many of the countries in which we operate, legislation has been passed, or proposed legislation is being considered, to limit greenhouse gases through various means including emissions permits and/or energy taxes. In several of our production facilities, we consume large amounts of energy, including electricity and natural gas. To date the permit system in effect in the various countries in which we operate has not had a material adverse effect on our financial results. However, if greenhouse gas legislation were to be enacted in one or more countries, it could negatively impact our future results from operations through increased costs of production, particularly as it relates to our energy requirements. If such increased costs of production were to materialize, we may be unable to pass price increases onto our customers to compensate for increased production costs, which may decrease our liquidity, operating income and results of operations.
ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
None.
ITEM 2. PROPERTIES
Our principal executive offices are located in an office building located at 5430 LBJ Freeway, Dallas, Texas, 75240-2697. The principal properties used in the operations of our subsidiaries and affiliates, including certain risks and uncertainties related thereto, are described in the applicable business sections of Item 1 – “Business.” We believe that our facilities are generally adequate and suitable for our respective uses.
ITEM 3.
|
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
|
We are involved in various legal proceedings. In addition to information that is included below, we have included certain of the information called for by this Item in Note 19 to our Consolidated Financial Statements, and we are incorporating that information here by reference.
Lead pigment litigation
Our former operations included the manufacture of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint. We, other former manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint (together, the “former pigment manufacturers”) and the Lead Industries Association (“LIA”), which discontinued business operations in 2002, have been named as defendants in various legal proceedings seeking damages for personal injury, property damage and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paints. Certain of these actions have been filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their public housing authorities and school districts, and certain others have been asserted as class actions. These lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of theories, including public and private nuisance, negligent product design, negligent failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of action, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or risk contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and misrepresentation, violations of state consumer protection statutes, supplier negligence and similar claims.
The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for educational programs. To the extent the plaintiffs seek compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages are unspecified unless otherwise indicated below. In some cases, the damages are unspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law. A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or withdrawn. Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial stages. Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary judgment rulings in favor of either the defendants or the plaintiffs. In addition, various other cases are pending (in which we are not a defendant) seeking recovery for injury allegedly caused by lead pigment and lead-based paint. Although we are not a defendant in these cases, the outcome of these cases may have an impact on cases that might be filed against us in the future.
We believe that these actions are without merit, and we intend to continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liability and to defend against all actions vigorously. We have never settled any of the market share, risk contribution, intentional tort, fraud, nuisance, supplier negligence, breach of warranty, conspiracy, misrepresentation, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, or statutory cases nor have any final, non-appealable, adverse judgments against us been entered.
We have not accrued any amounts for any of the pending lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation cases. Liability that may result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. In addition, new cases may continue to be filed against us. We cannot assure you that we will not incur liability in the future in respect of any of the pending or possible litigation in view of the inherent uncertainties involved in court and jury rulings. The resolution of any of these cases could result in recognition of a loss contingency accrual that could have a material adverse impact on our net income for the interim or annual period during which such liability is recognized, and a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial condition and liquidity.
In September 1999, an amended complaint was filed in Thomas v. Lead Industries Association, et al. (Circuit Court, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Case No. 99-CV-6411) adding as defendants the former pigment manufacturers to a suit originally filed against plaintiff's landlords. Plaintiff, a minor, alleged injuries purportedly caused by lead on the surfaces in homes in which he resided and sought compensatory and punitive damages. The case was tried in October 2007, and in November 2007 the jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants. In April 2008, plaintiff filed an appeal, and in December 2010, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court. This decision concludes the case in NL’s favor.
In April 2000, we were served with a complaint in County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. CV788657) brought against the former pigment manufacturers, the LIA and certain paint manufacturers. The County of Santa Clara seeks to recover compensatory damages for funds the plaintiffs have expended or will in the future expend for medical treatment, educational expenses, abatement or other costs due to exposure to, or potential exposure to, lead paint, disgorgement of profit, and punitive damages. Solano, Alameda, San Francisco, Monterey and San Mateo counties, the cities of San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles and San Diego, the Oakland and San Francisco unified school districts and housing authorities and the Oakland Redevelopment Agency have joined the case as plaintiffs. In January 2007, plaintiffs amended the complaint to drop all of the claims except for the public nuisance claim. In May 2008, the defendants filed a petition for review by the California Supreme Court, which was granted in July 2008. In July 2010, the California Supreme Court ruled that public entities could pursue this public nuisance case assisted by private counsel on a contingent fee basis after revising the respective retention agreements to conform with the requirements set forth in the Supreme Court’s opinion. The Supreme Court (1) clarified that the government attorneys overseeing the external, contingency fee counsel must, at a minimum, retain complete control over the course and conduct of the case; retain veto power over any decisions made by outside counsel; and be personally involved in overseeing the litigation and (2) remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
In June 2000, a complaint was filed in Illinois state court, Lewis, et al. v. Lead Industries Association, et al. (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, Case No. 00CH09800). Plaintiffs seek to represent two classes, one consisting of minors between the ages of six months and six years who resided in housing in Illinois built before 1978, and another consisting of individuals between the ages of six and twenty years who lived in Illinois housing built before 1978 when they were between the ages of six months and six years and who had blood lead levels of 10 micrograms/deciliter or more. The complaint seeks damages jointly and severally from the former pigment manufacturers and the LIA to establish a medical screening fund for the first class to determine blood lead levels, a medical monitoring fund for the second class to detect the onset of latent diseases, and a fund for a public education campaign. In April 2008, the trial court judge certified a class of children whose blood lead levels were screened venously between August 1995 and February 2008 and who had incurred expenses associated with such screening. The case is proceeding in the trial court.
In January and February 2007, we were served with several complaints, the majority of which were filed in Circuit Court in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. In some cases, complaints have been filed elsewhere in Wisconsin. The plaintiffs are minor children who allege injuries purportedly caused by lead on the surfaces of the homes in which they reside. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. The defendants in these cases include us, American Cyanamid Company, Armstrong Containers, Inc., E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Millennium Holdings, LLC, Atlanta Richfield Company, The Sherwin-Williams Company, Conagra Foods, Inc. and the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services. In some cases, additional lead paint manufacturers and/or property owners are also defendants. Of the cases filed, five remain pending and four of the remaining cases have been removed to Federal court (Burton, Owens, B. Stokes, and Gibson). In June 2010, the defendant ARCO’s motion for summary judgment was granted in Gibson. In September 2010, NL filed motions for summary judgment based on constitutional grounds in the Clark and Gibson cases and the plaintiffs in the Stokes, Owens and Burton cases filed motions to strike NL’s constitutional defenses. In November 2010, Gibson was dismissed as to all defendants in a ruling holding that application of Wisconsin’s risk contribution doctrine deprived defendants of due process. In December 2010, the plaintiff appealed to the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. In light of the Gibson ruling and appeal, the Clark case in state court has been stayed and the parties have agreed to stay all discovery in the other three Federal cases (Burton, R. Owens, and B. Stokes).
In February 2010, we were served with a complaint in Sifuentes v. American Cyanamid Company, et al. (United District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 10-C-0075). The plaintiff in this case is a minor who alleges injuries purportedly caused by lead on the surface of the home in which he resided. The claims raised in this case are identical to those in the Wisconsin cases described above. Defendants include us, American Cyanamid Company, Armstrong Containers, Inc., E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Atlanta Richfield Company and The Sherwin-Williams Company. In September 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to strike NL’s constitutional defenses. In light of the Gibson ruling and appeal described above, the parties have agreed to stay all discovery pending a decision.
In February 2011, we were served with an amended complaint in Allen, et al. v. American Cyanamid, et al. (United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 11-C-55). The plaintiffs in this case are minors who allege injuries purportedly caused by lead on the surfaces of the homes in which they resided. The complaint alleges negligence and strict liability and seeks compensatory damages jointly and severally from us, American Cyanamid Company, Armstrong Containers, Inc., E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Atlanta Richfield Company and The Sherwin-Williams Company. We intend to deny liability in this case and will defend vigorously against all claims.
In addition to the foregoing litigation, various legislation and administrative regulations have, from time to time, been proposed that seek to (a) impose various obligations on present and former manufacturers of lead pigment and lead-based paint with respect to asserted health concerns associated with the use of such products and (b) effectively overturn court decisions in which we and other pigment manufacturers have been successful. Examples of such proposed legislation include bills which would permit civil liability for damages on the basis of market share, rather than requiring plaintiffs to prove that the defendant’s product caused the alleged damage, and bills which would revive actions barred by the statute of limitations. While no legislation or regulations have been enacted to date that are expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity, the imposition of market share liability or other legislation could have such an effect.
Environmental matters and litigation
Our operations are governed by various environmental laws and regulations. Certain of our businesses are and have been engaged in the handling, manufacture or use of substances or compounds that may be considered toxic or hazardous within the meaning of applicable environmental laws and regulations. As with other companies engaged in similar businesses, certain of our past and current operations and products have the potential to cause environmental or other damage. We have implemented and continue to implement various policies and programs in an effort to minimize these risks. Our policy is to maintain compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations at all of our plants and to strive to improve environmental performance. From time to time, we may be subject to environmental regulatory enforcement under U.S. and non-U.S. statutes, the resolution of which typically involves the establishment of compliance programs. It is possible that future developments, such as stricter requirements of environmental laws and enforcement policies, could adversely affect our production, handling, use, storage, transportation, sale or disposal of such substances. We believe that all of our facilities are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws.
Certain properties and facilities used in our former operations, including divested primary and secondary lead smelters and former mining locations, are the subject of civil litigation, administrative proceedings or investigations arising under federal and state environmental laws. Additionally, in connection with past operating practices, we are currently involved as a defendant, potentially responsible party (“PRP”) or both, pursuant to CERCLA, and similar state laws in various governmental and private actions associated with waste disposal sites, mining locations, and facilities we or our predecessors currently or previously owned, operated or were used by us or our subsidiaries, or their predecessors, certain of which are on the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) Superfund National Priorities List or similar state lists. These proceedings seek cleanup costs, damages for personal injury, property damage and/or damages for injury to natural resources. Certain of these proceedings involve claims for substantial amounts. Although we may be jointly and severally liable for these costs, in most cases we are only one of a number of PRPs who may also be jointly and severally liable, and among whom costs may be shared or allocated. In addition, we are also a party to a number of personal injury lawsuits filed in various jurisdictions alleging claims related to environmental conditions alleged to have resulted from our operations.
Environmental obligations are difficult to assess and estimate for numerous reasons including the:
·
|
complexity and differing interpretations of governmental regulations;
|
·
|
number of PRPs and their ability or willingness to fund such allocation of costs;
|
·
|
financial capabilities of the PRPs and the allocation of costs among them;
|
·
|
solvency of other PRPs;
|
·
|
multiplicity of possible solutions;
|
·
|
number of years of investigatory, remedial and monitoring activity required; and
|
·
|
number of years between former operations and notice of claims and lack of information and documents about the former operations.
|
In addition, the imposition of more stringent standards or requirements under environmental laws or regulations, new developments or changes regarding site cleanup costs or allocation of costs among PRPs, solvency of other PRPs, the results of future testing and analysis undertaken with respect to certain sites or a determination that we are potentially responsible for the release of hazardous substances at other sites, could cause our expenditures to exceed our current estimates. Because we may be jointly and severally liable for the total remediation cost at certain sites, the amount for which we are ultimately liable may exceed our accruals due to, among other things, the reallocation of costs among PRPs or the insolvency of one or more PRPs. We cannot assure you that actual costs will not exceed accrued amounts or the upper end of the range for sites for which estimates have been made, and we cannot assure you that costs will not be incurred for sites where no estimates presently can be made. Further, additional environmental matters may arise in the future. If we were to incur any future liability, this could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements, results of operations and liquidity.
We record liabilities related to environmental remediation obligations when estimated future expenditures are probable and reasonably estimable. We adjust our environmental accruals as further information becomes available to us or as circumstances change. Such further information or changed circumstances could include, among other things, new assertions of liability, revised expectations regarding the nature, timing and extent of any remediation required or revised estimates of the allocation of remediation costs among PRPs, and such further information or changed circumstances could result in an increase or reduction in our accrued environmental costs. We generally do not discount estimated future expenditures to their present value due to the uncertainty of the timing of the pay out. We recognize recoveries of remediation costs from other parties, if any, as assets when their receipt is deemed probable. At December 31, 2010, we have not recognized any receivables for recoveries.
We do not know and cannot estimate the exact time frame over which we will make payments for our accrued environmental costs. The timing of payments depends upon a number of factors including the timing of the actual remediation process; which in turn depends on factors outside of our control. At each balance sheet date, we estimate the amount of our accrued environmental costs which we expect to pay within the next twelve months, and we classify this estimate as a current liability. We classify the remaining accrued environmental costs as a noncurrent liability.
On a quarterly basis, we evaluate the potential range of our liability at sites where we have been named as a PRP or defendant, including sites for which our wholly-owned environmental management subsidiary, NL Environmental Management Services, Inc. (“EMS”) has contractually assumed our obligations. See Note 19 to our Consolidated Financial Statements. At December 31, 2010, we had accrued approximately $40 million, related to approximately 50 sites, which are environmental matters that we believe are at the present time and/or in their current phase reasonably estimable. The upper end of the range of reasonably possible costs to us for sites for which we believe it is possible to estimate costs is approximately $73 million, including the amount currently accrued. We have not discounted these estimates to present value.
We believe that it is not possible to estimate the range of costs for certain sites. At December 31, 2010, there were approximately 5 sites for which we are not currently able to estimate a range of costs. For these sites, generally the investigation is in the early stages, and we are unable to determine whether or not we actually had any association with the site, the nature of our responsibility, if any, for the contamination at the site and the extent of contamination at and cost to remediate the site. The timing and availability of information on these sites is dependent on events outside of our control, such as when the party alleging liability provides information to us. At certain of these previously inactive sites, we have received general and special notices of liability from the EPA and/or state agencies alleging that we, sometimes with other PRPs, are liable for past and future costs of remediating environmental contamination allegedly caused by former operations. These notifications may assert that we, along with any other alleged PRPs, are liable for past and/or future clean-up costs that could be material to us if we are ultimately found liable.
In February 2004, we were served in Evans v. ASARCO (United States District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma, Case No. 04-CV-94EA(M)), an action on behalf of over two hundred individual plaintiffs, including owners of residential, commercial and government property in the town of Quapaw, Oklahoma, the mayor of the town of Quapaw, Oklahoma, and the School Board of Quapaw, Oklahoma. Plaintiffs allege causes of action in nuisance and seek a relocation program, property damages, including diminished property value damages, and punitive damages. We answered the complaint and denied all of plaintiffs’ allegations. In August 2009, defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the case, which was partially granted in February 2010. In October 2010, we filed a motion for summary judgment and in November 2010, plaintiffs dismissed NL from the case with prejudice. This dismissal concludes the case in our favor.
In January 2006, we were served in Brown et al. v. NL Industries, Inc. et al. (Circuit Court Wayne County, Michigan, Case No. 06-602096 CZ). Plaintiffs, property owners and other past or present residents of the Krainz Woods Neighborhood of Wayne County, Michigan, allege causes of action in negligence, nuisance, trespass and under the Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act with respect to a lead smelting facility formerly operated by us and another defendant. Plaintiffs seek property damages, personal injury damages, loss of income and medical expense and medical monitoring costs. In October 2007, we moved to dismiss several plaintiffs who failed to respond to discovery requests, and in February 2008, the motion was granted with respect to all such plaintiffs. In February 2008, the trial court entered a case management order pursuant to which the case will proceed as to eight of the plaintiffs’ claims, and the claims of the remaining plaintiffs have been stayed in the meantime. In April 2008, the other defendant in the case agreed to a settlement with the plaintiffs, and we are the only remaining defendant. The claims of eight of the plaintiffs were tried in January and February 2010, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of five of the plaintiffs. The jury awarded $119,125 in economic and non-economic property damages and $220,000 in reimbursement of environmental assessment costs. At the conclusion of the trial, the judge instructed the plaintiffs’ counsel to select another eight plaintiffs whose claims will be tried in March 2011. We do not believe that the facts and evidence support the verdict and damages awarded. We continue to believe that the claims of the plaintiffs are without merit and are subject to certain defenses and counterclaims. We intend to appeal any adverse judgment the court may enter against us and to continue to vigorously defend the matter.
In June 2006, we and several other PRPs received a Unilateral Administrative Order (“UAO”) from the EPA regarding a formerly-owned mine and milling facility located in Park Hills, Missouri. The Doe Run Company is the current owner of the site, which was purchased by a predecessor of Doe Run from us in approximately 1936. Doe Run is also named in the Order. In April 2008, the parties signed a definitive cost sharing agreement for sharing of the costs anticipated in connection with the order. In May 2008, the parties began work at the site as required by the UAO and in accordance with the cost sharing agreement.
In October 2006, we entered into a consent decree in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, in which we agreed to perform remedial design and remedial actions in Operating Unit 6 of the Waco Subsite of the Cherokee County Superfund Site. We conducted milling activities on the portion of the site which we have agreed to remediate. We are sharing responsibility with other PRPs as well as the EPA for remediating a tributary that drains the portions of the site in which the PRPs operated. We have also reimbursed the EPA for a portion of its past and future response costs related to the site. In the last two quarters of 2009, we were approached by state and federal natural resource trustees and have participated in preliminary discussions with respect to potential natural resource damage claims.
In June 2008, we were served in Barton, et al. v. NL Industries, Inc., (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Case No.: 2:08-CV-12558). The plaintiffs in this case are additional property owners and other past or present residents of the Krainz Woods Neighborhood, and the claims raised in this case are identical to those in the Brown case described above. We have denied liability in this case and will defend vigorously against all claims. Trial is scheduled to begin in August 2011.
In June 2008, we received a Directive and Notice to Insurers from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) regarding the Margaret’s Creek site in Old Bridge Township, New Jersey. NJDEP alleged that a waste hauler transported waste from one of our former facilities for disposal at the site in the early 1970s. NJDEP has since referred the site to the EPA, and in November 2009, the EPA added the site to the National Priorities List under the name “Raritan Bay Slag Site.” We are monitoring closely regarding the scope of the remedial activities that may be necessary at the site and the identification of parties who may have liability for the site.
In September 2008, we received a Special Notice letter from the EPA for liability associated with the Tar Creek site and a demand for related past and relocation costs. We responded with a good-faith offer to pay certain of the past costs and to complete limited work in the areas in which we operated, but declined to pay for other past costs or any relocation costs. We are involved in an ongoing dialogue with the EPA regarding a potential settlement with the EPA. In October 2008, we received a claim from the State of Oklahoma for past, future and relocation costs in connection to the site. The state continues to monitor for a potential settlement between the EPA and us and may subsequently attempt to pursue a separate settlement with us.
In January 2009, we were served in Brown, et al. v. NL Industries, Inc. et al. (Circuit Court Wayne County, Michigan, Case No. 09-002458 CE). This case involved identical claims to those raised in the Brown and Barton cases described above. In March 2010, the court dismissed the claims of all of the plaintiffs in this second Brown case and in April 2010, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order. In May 2010, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal in the case and in January 2011, the case was dismissed. This dismissal concludes the case in NL’s favor.
In June 2009, we were served with a complaint in Consolidation Coal Company v. 3M Company, et al. (United States District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina, Civil Action No. 5:09-CV-00191-FL). The complaint seeks to recover against NL and roughly 170 other defendants under CERCLA for past and future response costs. The plaintiffs allege that NL’s former Albany operation allegedly sent three PCB-containing transformers to the Ward Transformer Superfund Site. We have denied liability and will defend vigorously against all claims.
In June 2009, NL was served with a third-party complaint in New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Occidental Chemical Corp., et al. (L-009868-05, Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County). NL is one of approximately 300 third-party defendants (with a potential expansion of the case to over 3,200 unnamed parties) that have been sued by third-party plaintiffs Maxus Energy Corporation and Tierra Solutions, Inc., in response to claims by the State of New Jersey against them seeking to recover past and future environmental cleanup costs of the State and to obtain funds to perform a natural resource damage assessment in connection with contamination in the Passaic River and adjacent waters and sediments (the “Newark Bay Complex”). NL was named in the third-party complaint based upon its ownership of one former operating site and purported connection to a former Superfund site (at which NL was a small PRP) alleged to have contributed to the contamination in the Newark Bay Complex. We have denied liability and will defend vigorously against all of the claims. In October 2010, the third party defendants filed a motion to sever and stay the third-party action pending resolution of the State’s claims against the direct defendants and in December 2010, the judge denied the motion to sever and stay. However, the judge agreed to a phasing of the case to allow for trial on direct defendants liability and damages as the first and second phases of the case.
In July 2009, we were served in Beets v. Blue Tee Corp. et al. (Oklahoma State Court, District of Ottawa County, Case No. CJ-09-298). The complaint alleges negligence, strict liability, nuisance, and attractive nuisance against NL, four other mining companies and a mobile home park. In the complaint, five minor plaintiffs seek damages for personal injuries as well as punitive damages. We intend to deny liability and will defend vigorously against all claims. In August 2009, third-party defendant, the United States of America, removed the case to the Northern District of Oklahoma, where it was docketed as case No. 4:09-cv-546 and in September 2009, plaintiffs moved to return the case to the Oklahoma State Court, District of Ottawa County. In February 2010, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice the claims of three of the five minor plaintiffs. Trial has been scheduled to begin in October 2011.
In August 2009, we were served with a complaint in Raritan Baykeeper, Inc. d/b/a NY/NJ Baykeeper et al. v. NL Industries, Inc. et al. (United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Case No. 3:09-cv-04117). This is a citizen's suit filed by two local environmental groups pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Clean Water Act against NL, current owners, developers and state and local government entities. The complaint alleges that hazardous substances were and continue to be discharged from our former Sayreville, New Jersey property into the sediments of the adjacent Raritan River. The former Sayreville site is currently being remediated by owner/developer parties under the oversight of the NJDEP. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, imposition of civil penalties, and an award of costs. We intend to defend vigorously against all of the claims. In December 2009, NL and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. In May 2010, the court granted NL’s motion to dismiss. In June 2010, plaintiffs filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
In January 2010, we were served with an amended complaint in Los Angeles Unified School District v. Pozas Brothers Trucking Co., et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court, Central Civil West, LASC Case No. BC 391342). The complaint was filed against several defendants in connection to the alleged contamination of a 35 acre site in South Gate, California acquired by the plaintiff by eminent domain to construct a middle school and high school. The plaintiff alleges that The 1230 Corporation (f/k/a Pioneer Aluminum, Inc.) operated on a portion of property within the 35 acre site and is responsible for contamination caused by its operations and that NL is liable as an alleged successor to The 1230 Corporation, which is a subsidiary of NL. The plaintiff has brought claims for contribution, indemnity, and nuisance and is seeking past and future clean-up and other response costs. We have denied liability and will defend vigorously against all of the claims.
Other litigation
In addition to the matters described above, we and our affiliates are also involved in various other environmental, contractual, product liability, patent (or intellectual property), employment and other claims and disputes incidental to present and former businesses. In certain cases, we have insurance coverage for these items, although we do not expect additional material insurance coverage for environmental claims.
We currently believe that the disposition of all claims and disputes, individually or in the aggregate, should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity beyond the accruals already provided.
Insurance coverage claims
We are involved in certain legal proceedings with a number of our former insurance carriers regarding the nature and extent of the carriers’ obligations to us under insurance policies with respect to certain lead pigment and asbestos lawsuits. In addition to information that is included below, we have included certain of the information called for by this Item in Note 19 to our Consolidated Financial Statements, and we are incorporating that information here by reference.
The issue of whether insurance coverage for defense costs or indemnity or both will be found to exist for our lead pigment and asbestos litigation depends upon a variety of factors and we cannot assure you that such insurance coverage will be available. We have not considered any potential insurance recoveries for lead pigment or asbestos litigation matters in determining related accruals.
We have agreements with two former insurance carriers pursuant to which the carriers reimburse us for a portion of our lead pigment litigation defense costs, and one carrier reimburses us for a portion of our asbestos litigation defense costs. We are not able to determine how much we will ultimately recover from these carriers for defense costs incurred by us because of certain issues that arise regarding which defense costs qualify for reimbursement. While we continue to seek additional insurance recoveries, we do not know if we will be successful in obtaining reimbursement for either defense costs or indemnity. We have not considered any additional potential insurance recoveries in determining accruals for lead pigment or asbestos litigation matters. Any additional insurance recoveries would be recognized when the receipt is probable and the amount is determinable.
We have settled insurance coverage claims concerning environmental claims with certain of our principal former carriers. We do not expect further material settlements relating to environmental remediation coverage.
ITEM 4. RESERVED
PART II
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
Our common stock is listed and traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: NL). As of February 28, 2011, there were approximately 3,183 holders of record of our common stock. The following table sets forth the high and low closing per share sales prices for our common stock for the periods indicated, according to Bloomberg, and cash dividends paid during such periods. On February 28, 2011 the closing price of our common stock was $13.67.
|
|
High
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
Cash
dividends
paid
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
$ |
14.35 |
|
|
$ |
7.14 |
|
|
$ |
.125 |
|
Second Quarter
|
|
|
12.85 |
|
|
|
6.74 |
|
|
|
.125 |
|
Third Quarter
|
|
|
7.65 |
|
|
|
6.46 |
|
|
|
.125 |
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
|
7.27 |
|
|
|
6.12 |
|
|
|
.125 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
|
8.85 |
|
|
|
6.59 |
|
|
|
.125 |
|
Second Quarter
|
|
|
8.92 |
|
|
|
6.07 |
|
|
|
.125 |
|
Third Quarter
|
|
|
10.28 |
|
|
|
6.20 |
|
|
|
.125 |
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
|
12.14 |
|
|
|
8.54 |
|
|
|
.125 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2011 through February 28, 2011
|
|
$ |
14.52 |
|
|
$ |
11.01 |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
__________________________
In February 2011, our Board of Directors declared a first quarter 2011 cash dividend of $.125 per share to shareholders of record as of March 10, 2011 to be paid on March 29, 2011. However, the declaration and payment of future dividends, and the amount thereof, is discretionary and is dependent upon our results of operations, financial condition, cash requirements for businesses, contractual restrictions and other factors deemed relevant by our Board of Directors. The amount and timing of past dividends is not necessarily indicative of the amount or timing of any future dividends which might be paid. There are currently no contractual restrictions on the amount of dividends which we may pay.
Performance Graph - Set forth below is a line graph comparing the yearly change in our cumulative total stockholder return on our common stock against the cumulative total return of the S&P 500 Composite Stock Price Index and the S&P 500 Industrial Conglomerates Index for the period from December 31, 2005 through December 31, 2010. The graph shows the value at December 31 of each year assuming an original investment of $100 at December 31, 2005 and the reinvestment of dividends.
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
NL common stock
|
|
$ |
100 |
|
|
$ |
77 |
|
|
$ |
89 |
|
|
$ |
109 |
|
|
$ |
60 |
|
|
$ |
103 |
|
S&P 500 Composite Stock Price Index
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
112 |
|
S&P 500 Industrial Conglomerates Index
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
113 |
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
The information contained in the performance graph shall not be deemed “soliciting material” or “filed” with the SEC, or subject to the liabilities of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, except to the extent we specifically request that the material be treated as soliciting material or specifically incorporate this performance graph by reference into a document filed under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
Equity compensation plan information
We have an equity compensation plan, which was approved by our shareholders, providing for the discretionary grant to our employees and directors of, among other things, options to purchase our common stock and stock awards. As of December 31, 2010, there were 43,150 options outstanding to purchase shares of our common stock, and approximately 4,103,600 shares were available for future grant or issuance. All remaining outstanding options at December 31, 2010 expired or were exercised in February 2011. We do not have any equity compensation plans that were not approved by our shareholders. See Note 14 to our Consolidated Financial Statements.
ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
The following selected financial data should be read in conjunction with our Consolidated Financial Statements and Item 7 - "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations."
|
|
Years ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
(In millions, except per share data)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS DATA:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$ |
190.1 |
|
|
$ |
177.7 |
|
|
$ |
165.5 |
|
|
$ |
116.1 |
|
|
$ |
135.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from component products operations
|
|
$ |
20.5 |
|
|
$ |
15.4 |
|
|
$ |
5.3 |
(1) |
|
$ |
(4.0 |
) |
|
$ |
9.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings (losses) of Kronos
|
|
$ |
29.3 |
|
|
$ |
(23.9 |
) |
|
$ |
3.2 |
|
|
$ |
(12.5 |
) |
|
$ |
45.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
29.6 |
|
|
$ |
.9 |
|
|
$ |
32.8 |
|
|
$ |
(12.0 |
) |
|
$ |
70.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) attributable to NL stockholders
|
|
$ |
26.1 |
|
|
$ |
(1.7 |
) |
|
$ |
33.2 |
|
|
$ |
(11.8 |
) |
|
$ |
70.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE DATA:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) attributable to NL stockholders
|
|
$ |
.54 |
|
|
$ |
(.04 |
) |
|
$ |
.68 |
|
|
$ |
(.24 |
) |
|
$ |
1.40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash dividends per share
|
|
$ |
.50 |
|
|
$ |
.50 |
|
|
$ |
.50 |
|
|
$ |
.50 |
|
|
$ |
.50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding
|
|
|
48,584 |
|
|
|
48,590 |
|
|
|
48,605 |
|
|
|
48,609 |
|
|
|
48,627 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BALANCE SHEET DATA (at year end):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets (3)
|
|
$ |
529.3 |
|
|
$ |
524.8 |
|
|
$ |
419.5 |
|
|
$ |
403.0 |
|
|
$ |
553.7 |
|
Long-term debt, including current maturities (2)
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
50.0 |
|
|
|
43.0 |
|
|
|
42.2 |
|
|
|
74.5 |
|
NL stockholders' equity (3)(4)
|
|
|
248.5 |
|
|
|
246.5 |
|
|
|
188.4 |
|
|
|
174.6 |
|
|
|
252.9 |
|
Total equity
|
|
|
293.9 |
|
|
|
260.8 |
|
|
|
200.2 |
|
|
|
185.7 |
|
|
|
263.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOW DATA:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating activities
|
|
$ |
29.0 |
|
|
$ |
(2.8 |
) |
|
$ |
.8 |
|
|
$ |
1.4 |
|
|
$ |
5.4 |
|
Investing activities
|
|
|
(25.2 |
) |
|
|
17.5 |
|
|
|
7.1 |
|
|
|
32.4 |
|
|
|
2.8 |
|
Financing activities
|
|
|
(27.7 |
) |
|
|
(27.3 |
) |
|
|
(32.2 |
) |
|
|
(25.9 |
) |
|
|
(17.8 |
) |
|
(1)Includes a $10.1 million goodwill impairment charge related to our Marine Components reporting unit. See Note 7 to our Consolidated Financial Statements.
|
|
(2)Long-term debt includes promissory notes payable to affiliates. See Note 17 to our Consolidated Financial Statements.
|
|
(3)We adopted the asset and liability recognition provisions of Accounting Standard Codification (“ASC”) Topic 715 as of December 31, 2006 and the measurement date provisions of the Topic as of December 31, 2007. See Notes 16 to our Consolidated Financial Statements.
|
|
(4)We adopted the uncertain tax position provisions of ASC Topic 740 as of January 1, 2007. See Note 15 to our Consolidated Financial Statements.
|
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Business Overview
We are primarily a holding company. We operate in the component products industry through our majority-owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. We also own a noncontrolling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc. Both CompX (NYSE Amex: CIX) and Kronos (NYSE: KRO) file periodic reports with the SEC.
CompX is a leading manufacturer of engineered components utilized in a variety of applications and industries. Through its Security Products division CompX manufactures mechanical and electrical cabinet locks and other locking mechanisms used in postal, office and institutional furniture, transportation, vending, tool storage and other general cabinetry applications. CompX’s Furniture Components division manufactures precision ball bearing slides and ergonomic computer support systems used in office and institutional furniture, home appliances, tool storage and a variety of other applications. CompX also manufactures stainless steel exhaust systems, gauges and throttle controls for the performance boat industry through its Marine Components division.
We account for our 30% non-controlling interest in Kronos by the equity method. Kronos is a leading global producer and marketer of value-added titanium dioxide pigments. TiO2 is used for a variety of manufacturing applications including coatings, plastics, paper and other industrial products.
Net Income Overview
We had net income attributable to NL stockholders of $70.4 million, or $1.40 per diluted share, in 2010 compared to a net loss of $11.8 million, or $.24 per share, in 2009 and net income of $33.2 million, or $.68 per diluted share, in 2008.
As more fully discussed below, the increase in our earnings per share from a loss in 2009 to income in 2010 is primarily due to the net effects of:
·
|
equity in net income from Kronos in 2010 as compared to equity in losses in 2009,
|
·
|
a pre-tax gain of $78.9 million ($51.0 million, net of taxes) on our reduction in ownership interest in Kronos in 2010,
|
·
|
lower pre-tax litigation settlement gains of $6 million in 2010,
|
·
|
income from operations from component products in 2010 as compared to a loss in 2009,
|
·
|
a litigation settlement expense in 2010 as discussed below,
|
·
|
lower environmental remediation expense in 2010,
|
·
|
lower litigation and related expenses in 2010, and
|
·
|
higher insurance recoveries in 2010 primarily related to the litigation settlement expense.
|
The decrease in our earnings per share from 2008 to 2009 is primarily due to the net effects of:
·
|
equity in net losses of Kronos in 2009 as opposed to earnings in 2008,
|
·
|
lower litigation settlement gains of $37.5 million in 2009,
|
·
|
lower component products income from operations in 2009, including consideration of the impact of the $10.1 million goodwill impairment charge related to the marine components business line recognized in 2008,
|
·
|
higher defined benefit pension expense in 2009,
|
·
|
lower litigation and related expenses in 2009,
|
·
|
lower environmental remediation expense in 2009 and
|
·
|
lower insurance recoveries in 2009.
|
Our 2010 net income attributable to NL stockholders includes:
·
|
income of $1.05 per share related to the decrease in our ownership interest in Kronos from 36% to 30% in 2010,
|
·
|
income included in our equity in earnings of Kronos of $.17 per share related to an income tax benefit recognized by Kronos in the first quarter related to a European Court ruling that resulted in the favorable resolution of certain German income tax issues,
|
·
|
income of $.25 per share related to certain insurance recoveries we recognized,
|
·
|
income of $.07 per share related to a settlement agreement we entered into with another PRP for certain environmental matters,
|
·
|
a charge of $.43 per share related to a litigation settlement expense,
|
·
|
a charge of $.03 per share, net of noncontrolling interest, related to the recognition of a deferred income tax liability associated with a determination that certain undistributed earnings of CompX’s Taiwanese subsidiary can no longer be considered to be permanently reinvested, and
|
·
|
a write-down of assets held for sale of $.01 per share.
|
Our 2009 net loss attributable to NL stockholders includes:
·
|
a litigation settlement gain of $.15 per share related to the settlement of condemnation proceedings on real property we owned,
|
·
|
income of $.06 per share related to certain insurance recoveries, and
|
·
|
a write-down of assets held for sale of $.01 per share.
|
Our 2008 net income attributable to NL stockholders includes:
·
|
a litigation settlement gain of $.65 per diluted share related to the settlement of condemnation proceedings on real property we owned,
|
·
|
a goodwill impairment charge of $.21 per diluted share related to the marine business line of our component products operations,
|
·
|
interest income of $.06 per diluted share related to certain escrow funds,
|
·
|
income included in our equity in earnings of Kronos of $.03 per diluted share related to an adjustment of certain income tax attributes of Kronos in Germany, and
|
·
|
income of $.13 per diluted share related to certain insurance recoveries.
|
Outlook for 2011
We currently expect our net income in 2011 to be lower than in 2010 due to the net effects of:
·
|
the gain recorded on our reduction in ownership interest in Kronos in 2010,
|
·
|
higher equity in earnings from Kronos in 2011,
|
·
|
the litigation settlement charge recorded in 2010,
|
·
|
lower insurance recoveries in 2011, and
|
·
|
higher component products income from operations in 2011.
|
Each of these expectations is more fully discussed below.
Critical accounting policies and estimates
The accompanying "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" is based upon our Consolidated Financial Statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America ("GAAP"). The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amount of revenues and expenses during the reported period. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates, including those related to the recoverability of long-lived assets, pension and other postretirement benefit obligations and the underlying actuarial assumptions related thereto, the realization of deferred income tax assets and accruals for litigation, income tax and other contingencies. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses. Actual results may differ significantly from previously-estimated amounts under different assumptions or conditions.
The following critical accounting policies affect our more significant judgments and estimates used in the preparation of our Consolidated Financial Statements:
·
|
Investments - We own investments in certain companies that we account for as marketable securities carried at fair value or that we account for under the equity method. For these investments, we evaluate the fair value at each balance sheet date. We use quoted market prices, Level 1 inputs as defined in Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 820-10-35, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, to determine fair value for certain of our marketable debt securities and publicly traded investees. We record an impairment charge when we believe an investment has experienced an other than temporary decline in fair value below its cost basis (for marketable securities) or below its carrying value (for equity method investees). Further adverse changes in market conditions or poor operating results of underlying investments could result in losses or our inability to recover the carrying value of the investments that may not be reflected in an investment’s current carrying value, thereby possibly requiring us to recognize an impairment charge in the future.
|
At December 31, 2010, the carrying value (which equals fair value) of substantially all of our marketable securities equaled or exceeded the cost basis of each of such investments. At December 31, 2010, the $42.49 per share quoted market price of our investment in Kronos (our only equity method investee) exceeded its per share net carrying value by over 200%.
·
|
Long-lived assets - We assess property and equipment for impairment only when circumstances (as specified in ASC 360-10-35, Property, Plant, and Equipment) indicate an impairment may exist. Our determination is based upon, among other things, our estimates of the amount of future net cash flows to be generated by the long-lived asset (Level 3 inputs) and our estimates of the current fair value of the asset. Considerable management judgment is necessary to evaluate the impact of operating changes and to estimate future cash flows. Assumptions used in our impairment evaluations, such as forecasted growth rates and our cost of capital, are consistent with our internal projections and operating plans.
|
Due to management’s approval of a restructuring plan for CompX’s Furniture Components reporting unit in November of 2010, which includes moving precision slide production from the Byron Center, Michigan facility to other precision slide manufacturing facilities within our Furniture Components unit, we evaluated the long lived assets for our Byron Center facility. As of December 31, 2010, we concluded no impairments were present. However, if our future cash flows from operations less capital expenditures were to drop significantly below our current expectations, it is reasonably likely we would conclude an impairment was present.
No other long-lived assets in our other reporting units were tested for impairment during 2010 because there were no circumstances indicating an impairment may exist.
·
|
Goodwill - We perform a goodwill impairment test annually in the third quarter of each year. Goodwill is also evaluated for impairment at other times whenever an event occurs or circumstances change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying value. The estimated fair values of CompX’s three reporting units are determined using Level 3 inputs of a discounted cash flow technique since Level 1 inputs of market prices are not available at the reporting unit level. If the fair value is less than the book value, the asset is written down to the estimated fair value.
|
Considerable management judgment is necessary to evaluate the impact of operating changes and to estimate future cash flows. Assumptions used in our impairment evaluations, such as forecasted growth rates and our cost of capital, are consistent with our internal projections and operating plans. However, different assumptions and estimates could result in materially different findings which could result in the recognition of a material goodwill impairment.
No goodwill impairments were deemed to exist as a result of our annual impairment review completed during the third quarter of 2010, as the estimated fair value of each reporting unit was substantially in excess of the net carrying value of the respective reporting unit. See Notes 1 and 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
·
|
Benefit plans - We maintain various defined benefit pension plans and postretirement benefits other than pensions (“OPEB”). The amounts recognized as defined benefit pension and OPEB expenses and the reported amounts of pension asset and accrued pension and OPEB costs are actuarially determined based on several assumptions, including discount rates, expected rates of returns on plan assets and expected health care trend rates. Variances from these actuarially assumed rates will result in increases or decreases, as applicable, in the recognized pension and OPEB obligations, pension and OPEB expenses and funding requirements. These assumptions are more fully described below “Assumptions on defined benefit pension plans and OPEB plans.”
|
·
|
Income taxes - We recognize deferred taxes for future tax effects of temporary differences between financial and income tax reporting. While we have considered future taxable income and ongoing prudent and feasible tax planning strategies in assessing the need for a valuation allowance, it is possible that in the future we may change our estimate of the amount of the deferred income tax assets that would more-likely-than-not be realized in the future resulting in an adjustment to the deferred income tax asset valuation allowance that would either increase or decrease, as applicable, reported net income in the period the change in estimate was made.
|
We record a reserve for uncertain tax positions for tax positions where we believe it is more-likely-than-not our position will not prevail with the applicable tax authorities. It is possible that in the future we may change our assessment regarding the probability that our tax positions will prevail that would require an adjustment to the amount of our reserve for uncertain tax positions that could either increase or decrease, as applicable, reported net income in the period the change in assessment was made. See Note 15 to our Consolidated Financial Statements.
We reevaluate at the end of each reporting period whether or not some or all of the undistributed earnings of our non-U.S. subsidiaries are not permanently reinvested (as that term is defined in GAAP). At the end of March 2010, and based primarily upon changes in our cash management plans, we determined that all of the undistributed earnings of CompX’s Taiwanese subsidiary can no longer be considered permanently reinvested in Taiwan. Accordingly, in the first quarter of 2010 we recognized an aggregate $1.9 million provision for deferred income taxes on the pre-2005 undistributed earnings of our Taiwanese subsidiary. Consequently, all of the undistributed earnings of our non-U.S. operations are now considered to be not permanently reinvested. While we may have currently concluded that all of the undistributed earnings are not permanently reinvested, facts and circumstances can change in the future, and it is possible that a change in facts and circumstances, such as a change in the expectation regarding the capital needs of our non-U.S. subsidiaries, could result in a conclusion that some or all of the undistributed earnings are permanently reinvested. If our prior conclusions change, we would be required to derecognize a previously recognized deferred income tax liability in an amount equal to the estimated incremental U.S. income tax and withholding tax liability related to the amount of undistributed earnings considered to be permanently reinvested.
·
|
Accruals - We record accruals for environmental, legal and other contingencies and commitments when estimated future expenditures associated with such contingencies become probable, and the amounts can be reasonably estimated. However, new information may become available, or circumstances (such as applicable laws and regulations) may change, thereby resulting in an increase or decrease in the amount required to be accrued for such matters (and therefore a decrease or increase in reported net income in the period of such change).
|
·
|
Assets Held for Sale - Our assets held for sale at December 31, 2010, consist of a facility in River Grove, Illinois and land in Neenah, Wisconsin. These two properties (primarily land, buildings and building improvements) were formerly used in CompX’s operations. During the third quarter of 2010, and as weak economic conditions continued longer than expected, we obtained an independent appraisal for the River Grove facility (the most significant of these two properties). Based on this appraisal, we recorded a write-down of $.5 million during the third quarter of 2010 to reduce the carrying value of the asset to its estimated fair value less cost to sell. During the fourth quarter of 2010, we obtained an independent appraisal for the Neenah land. Based on this appraisal, we determined the carrying value of the asset approximates the fair value less cost to sell and therefore no adjustment to the carrying value was deemed necessary. The combined carrying value of these two properties is $2.4 million at December 31, 2010. The appraisals represent a Level 2 input. Both properties are being actively marketed. However, due to the current state of the commercial real estate market, we cannot be certain of the timing of the disposition of the assets. If we continue to experience difficulty in disposing of the assets at or above their carrying value, we may have to record additional write-downs of the assets in the future.
|
Income from operations of CompX and Kronos is impacted by certain of these significant judgments and estimates, as summarized below:
·
|
Chemicals – allowance for doubtful accounts, impairment of equity method investments, long-lived assets, defined benefit pension and OPEB plans, loss accruals and income taxes, and
|
·
|
Component products – impairment of goodwill and long-lived assets, loss accruals and income taxes.
|
In addition, general corporate and other items are impacted by the significant judgments and estimates for impairment of marketable securities and equity method investments, defined benefit pension and OPEB plans, deferred income tax asset valuation allowances and loss accruals.
Income from operations
The following table shows the components of our income (loss) from operations.
|
|
Year ended December 31,
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
2008-09 |
|
|
|
2009-10 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CompX
|
|
$ |
5.3 |
|
|
$ |
(4.0 |
) |
|
$ |
9.4 |
|
|
|
(175 |
)% |
|
|
335 |
% |
Insurance recoveries
|
|
|
9.6 |
|
|
|
4.6 |
|
|
|
18.8 |
|
|
|
(52 |
)% |
|
|
306 |
% |
Litigation settlement gain
|
|
|
48.8 |
|
|
|
11.3 |
|
|
|
5.3 |
|
|
|
(77 |
)% |
|
|
(53 |
)% |
Litigation settlement expense
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(32.2 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
Corporate expense and other
|
|
|
(24.9 |
) |
|
|
(23.5 |
) |
|
|
(15.5 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
)% |
|
|
(34 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from operations
|
|
$ |
38.8 |
|
|
$ |
(11.6 |
) |
|
$ |
(14.2 |
) |
|
|
(130 |
)% |
|
|
23 |
% |
The following table shows the components of our income (loss) before income taxes exclusive of our income from operations.
|
|
Year ended December 31,
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
2008-09 |
|
|
|
2009-10 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings (loss) of Kronos
|
|
$ |
3.2 |
|
|
$ |
(12.5 |
) |
|
$ |
45.6 |
|
|
|
(486 |
)% |
|
n.m.
|
|
Gain on reduction in ownership in Kronos Worldwide, Inc.
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
78.9 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
n.m.
|
|
Interest and dividend income
|
|
|
8.0 |
|
|
|
2.7 |
|
|
|
2.4 |
|
|
|
(66 |
)% |
|
|
(11 |
)% |
Interest expense
|
|
|
(2.4 |
) |
|
|
(1.1 |
) |
|
|
(1.5 |
) |
|
|
(55 |
)% |
|
|
42 |
% |
|
________________________________
|
n.m. - not meaningful
CompX International Inc.
|
|
Year ended December 31,
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
2008-09 |
|
|
|
2009-10 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$ |
165.5 |
|
|
$ |
116.1 |
|
|
$ |
135.3 |
|
|
|
(30 |
)% |
|
|
17 |
% |
Cost of sales
|
|
|
125.7 |
|
|
|
92.3 |
|
|
|
99.3 |
|
|
|
(27 |
)% |
|
|
8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
39.8 |
|
|
|
23.8 |
|
|
|
36.0 |
|
|
|
(40 |
)% |
|
|
51 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill impairment
|
|
|
10.1 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(100 |
)% |
|
|
- |
|
Operating costs and expenses
|
|
|
24.4 |
|
|
|
27.1 |
|
|
|
26.1 |
|
|
|
11 |
% |
|
|
(4 |
)% |
Assets held for sale write-down
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
.7 |
|
|
|
.5 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
(29 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income(loss)from operations
|
|
$ |
5.3 |
|
|
$ |
(4.0 |
) |
|
$ |
9.4 |
|
|
|
(175 |
)% |
|
|
335 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of net sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
76 |
% |
|
|
80 |
% |
|
|
73 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
24 |
% |
|
|
20 |
% |
|
|
27 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses
|
|
|
21 |
% |
|
|
23 |
% |
|
|
19 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from operations
|
|
|
3 |
% |
|
|
(3 |
)% |
|
|
7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Sales – Net sales increased approximately $19.2 million in 2010 as compared to 2009 principally due to an increase in order rates from our customers resulting from improved economic conditions in North America. CompX’s Furniture Components, Security Products and Marine Components businesses accounted for approximately 57%, 34% and 9%, respectively, of the total increase in sales year over year. Furniture Components sales comprised a greater percentage of the total increase because this market experienced a greater contraction in demand during the economic downturn in 2009, resulting in a greater relative increase as customer demand began to return. The Marine Components business accounted for a smaller percentage of the total increase due to its smaller sales volume.
Net sales decreased approximately $49.4 million in 2009 as compared to 2008 principally due to lower order rates from our customers resulting from unfavorable economic conditions in North America. CompX’s Furniture Components, Security Products and Marine Components businesses accounted for approximately 57%, 32% and 11%, respectively, of the total decrease in sales year over year.
Cost of Sales and Gross Margin – Cost of sales increased from 2009 to 2010 primarily due to increased sales volumes. As a percentage of sales, gross margin increased in 2010 from the prior year. The increase in gross margin percentage is primarily due to improved coverage of overhead and fixed manufacturing costs from higher sales volume and the related efficiency gains.
Cost of sales decreased from 2008 to 2009 primarily due to decreased sales volumes. As a percentage of sales, gross margin decreased in 2009 from the prior year primarily due to reduced coverage of overhead and fixed manufacturing costs from lower sales volume and the related under-utilization of capacity, partially offset by a net $4.8 million in fixed manufacturing cost reductions implemented in response to lower sales.
Operating Costs and Expenses - Operating costs and expenses consist primarily of sales and administrative related personnel costs, sales commissions and advertising expenses directly related to product sales, patent litigation expenses and administrative costs relating to business unit and corporate management activities, as well as gains and losses on plant, property and equipment and currency transaction gains and losses. As a percentage of net sales, operating costs and expenses decreased 4% in 2010 compared to 2009 primarily due to selling, general and administrative costs increasing at a slower rate than sales volumes and to lower patent litigation expenses in 2010.
While operating costs and expenses were reduced by $1.7 million from 2008 to 2009 in response to lower sales, they increased as a percentage of net sales due to the significant reduction in sales volumes.
Goodwill Impairment – During 2008, we recorded a non-cash goodwill impairment charge of $10.1 million for CompX’s marine components reporting unit. See Note 7 to our Consolidated Financial Statements.
Income from operations – The comparison of income from operations for 2010 to 2009 was primarily impacted by the net effects of:
·
|
a $12.2 million improvement in gross margin in 2010 due to higher sales and continued control of fixed manufacturing costs, resulting in an increase in utilization of production capacity and improved coverage of fixed manufacturing costs;
|
·
|
the positive impact of $2.2 million in lower patent litigation expenses relating to Furniture Components in 2010; and
|
·
|
a negative $1.8 million impact of relative changes in currency exchange rates in 2010.
|
Excluding the 2008 goodwill impairment charge discussed above, the comparison of income from operations for 2009 to 2008 was primarily impacted by the net effects of:
·
|
a negative impact of approximately $21.2 million relating to lower order rates from many of our customers resulting from unfavorable economic conditions in North America in 2009,
|
·
|
approximately $4.6 million of patent litigation expenses in 2009 relating to Furniture Components,
|
·
|
a write-down on assets held for sale of approximately $717,000,
|
·
|
a $3.8 million reduction in fixed manufacturing expenses in 2009 in response to the lower sales volume,
|
·
|
a $1.7 million reduction in lower operating costs and expenses in 2009 in response to the lower sales volume and
|
·
|
$900,000 in lower depreciation expense in 2009 due to a reduction in capital expenditures for shorter lived assets over the last several years in response to lower sales.
|
Currency – CompX’s Furniture Components business has substantial operations and assets located outside the United States (in Canada and Taiwan). The majority of sales generated from our non-U.S. operations are denominated in the U.S. dollar with the remainder denominated in other currencies, principally the Canadian dollar and the New Taiwan dollar. Most materials, labor and other production costs for our non-U.S. operations are denominated primarily in local currencies. Consequently, the translated U.S. dollar values of our non-U.S. sales and operating results are subject to currency exchange rate fluctuations which may favorably or unfavorably impact reported earnings and may affect comparability of period-to-period operating results. In addition to the impact of the translation of sales and expenses over time, our non-U.S. operations also generate currency transaction gains and losses which primarily relate to the difference between the currency exchange rates in effect when non-local currency sales or operating costs are initially accrued and when such amounts are settled with the non-local currency.
Overall, fluctuations in currency exchange rates had the following effects on Furniture Component net sales and income from operations:
Impact of changes in currency exchange rates - 2009 vs. 2010 (in thousands)
|
|
|
|
Transaction gains/(losses)recognized
|
|
|
Translation gain/loss-
impact of rate changes
|
|
|
Total currency impact
2009 vs. 2010
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Change
|
|
Impact on:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
999 |
|
|
$ |
999 |
|
Income from operations
|
|
|
(236 |
) |
|
|
(354 |
) |
|
|
(118 |
) |
|
|
(1,645 |
) |
|
|
(1,763 |
) |
Impact of changes in currency exchange rates - 2008 vs. 2009 (in thousands)
|
|
|
|
Transaction gains/(losses)recognized
|
|
|
Translation gain/loss-
impact of rate changes
|
|
|
Total currency impact
2008 vs. 2009
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Change
|
|
Impact on:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
(848 |
) |
|
$ |
(848 |
) |
Income from operations
|
|
|
679 |
|
|
|
(236 |
) |
|
|
(915 |
) |
|
|
907 |
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
The positive impact on sales in 2010 as compared to 2009 relates to sales denominated in non-U.S. dollar currencies translated into higher U.S. dollar sales due to a strengthening of the local currency in relation to the U.S. dollar. The negative impact on sales in 2009 as compared to 2008 relates to sales denominated in non-U.S. dollar currencies translated into lower U.S. dollar sales due to a weakening of the local currency in relation to the U.S. dollar.
The negative impact on income from operations in 2010 as compared to the prior year results from the U.S. dollar denominated sales of non-U.S. operations converted into lower local currency amounts due to the weakening of the U.S. dollar. This negatively impacted our gross margin as it results in less local currency generated from sales to cover the costs of non-U.S. operations which are denominated in local currency. The net impact on income from operations of changes in currency rates from 2008 to 2009 was not significant.
General – CompX’s profitability primarily depends on our ability to utilize production capacity effectively, which is affected by, among other things, the demand for our products and our ability to control our manufacturing costs, primarily labor costs and materials. The materials used in our products consist of purchased components and raw materials, some of which are subject to fluctuations in the commodity markets such as coiled steel, zinc, copper, plastic resin and stainless steel. Total material costs represented approximately 50% of our cost of sales in 2010, with commodity related raw materials accounting for approximately 17% of our cost of sales. Worldwide raw material costs increased significantly in 2008 and then declined in 2009 and began increasing in the second half of 2010. We occasionally enter into commodity related raw material supply arrangements to mitigate the short-term impact of future increases in commodity related raw material costs. While these arrangements do not necessarily commit us to a minimum volume of purchases, they generally provide for stated unit prices based upon achievement of specified volume purchase levels. This allows us to stabilize commodity related raw material purchase prices to a certain extent, provided the specified minimum purchase quantities are met. We enter into such arrangements for zinc and coiled steel. We expect commodity related raw material prices to increase in 2011 in conjunction with higher demand as a result of the expected improvement in the world wide economy. Materials purchased on the spot market are sometimes subject to unanticipated and sudden price increases. We generally seek to mitigate the impact of fluctuations in raw material costs on our margins through improvements in production efficiencies or other operating cost reductions. In the event we are unable to offset raw material cost increases with other cost reductions, it may be difficult to recover those cost increases through increased product selling prices or raw material surcharges due to the competitive nature of the markets served by our products. Consequently, overall operating margins may be affected by raw material cost pressures.
Results by Reporting Unit
The key performance indicator for CompX’s reporting units is the level of their income from operations (see discussion below).
|
|
Years ended December 31,
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
2008- |
|
|
|
2009- |
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
Net sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Security Products
|
|
$ |
77.1 |
|
|
$ |
61.4 |
|
|
$ |
68.0 |
|
|
|
(20 |
)% |
|
|
11 |
% |
Furniture Components
|
|
|
76.4 |
|
|
|
48.2 |
|
|
|
59.1 |
|
|
|
(37 |
)% |
|
|
23 |
% |
Marine Components
|
|
|
12.0 |
|
|
|
6.5 |
|
|
|
8.2 |
|
|
|
(46 |
)% |
|
|
26 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net sales
|
|
$ |
165.5 |
|
|
$ |
116.1 |
|
|
$ |
135.3 |
|
|
|
(30 |
)% |
|
|
17 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Security Products
|
|
$ |
21.4 |
|
|
$ |
17.8 |
|
|
$ |
21.6 |
|
|
|
(18 |
)% |
|
|
21 |
% |
Furniture Components
|
|
|
16.0 |
|
|
|
6.5 |
|
|
|
13.5 |
|
|
|
(60 |
)% |
|
|
108 |
% |
Marine Components
|
|
|
2.4 |
|
|
|
(0.5 |
) |
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
|
(120 |
)% |
|
|
280 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross margin
|
|
$ |
39.8 |
|
|
$ |
23.8 |
|
|
$ |
36.0 |
|
|
|
(40 |
)% |
|
|
51 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from operations (loss):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Security Products
|
|
$ |
12.4 |
|
|
$ |
9.7 |
|
|
$ |
13.1 |
|
|
|
(24 |
)% |
|
|
35 |
% |
Furniture Components
|
|
|
9.1 |
|
|
|
(4.7 |
) |
|
|
3.4 |
|
|
|
(151 |
)% |
|
|
172 |
% |
Marine Components
|
|
|
(10.7 |
) |
|
|
(3.0 |
) |
|
|
(1.4 |
) |
|
|
71 |
% |
|
|
53 |
% |
Corporate operating expenses
|
|
|
(5.5 |
) |
|
|
(6.0 |
) |
|
|
(5.7 |
) |
|
|
(13 |
)% |
|
|
5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total income from operations
|
|
$ |
5.3 |
|
|
$ |
(4.0 |
) |
|
$ |
9.4 |
|
|
|
(175 |
)% |
|
|
335 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from operations margin:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Security Products
|
|
|
16 |
% |
|
|
16 |
% |
|
|
19 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Furniture Components
|
|
|
12 |
% |
|
|
(10 |
)% |
|
|
6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marine Components
|
|
|
(89 |
)% |
|
|
(46 |
)% |
|
|
(17 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total income from operations margin
|
|
|
3 |
% |
|
|
(3 |
)% |
|
|
7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Security Products - Security Products net sales increased 11% to $68.0 million in 2010 compared to $61.4 million in 2009. The increase in sales is primarily due to an increase in order rates across most of our customers resulting from improved economic conditions in North America. Gross margin and operating income percentages increased in 2010 compared to 2009 due to the positive impact of (i) a $4.0 million increase in variable contribution primarily as a result of higher sales and improved production efficiencies directly resulting from the higher sales, and (ii) improved leverage of fixed manufacturing costs (which increased only $.3 million) and selling, general and administrative costs (which increased only $.4 million) on higher sales.
Security Products net sales decreased 20% to $61.4 million in 2009 compared to $77.1 million in 2008. The decrease in sales is primarily due to lower customer order rates from most of our customers resulting from unfavorable economic conditions in North America. Gross margin percentage increased slightly (less than 1%) in 2009 compared to 2008 and operating income percentage was comparable at 16% for the same periods. The comparable gross margin and income from operations percentages were achieved despite the significant decrease in sales due to the positive impact of (i) a $2.1 million reduction in fixed manufacturing costs implemented in response to lower sales, (ii) a $1.6 million improvement in variable contribution margin through a combination of sales price increases implemented at the beginning of 2009 in response to cost increases experienced in 2008 and a more favorable product mix and (iii) a $900,000 reduction in selling, general and administrative costs in response to lower sales which were partially offset by reduced fixed costs coverage from lower sales and the related under-utilization of capacity.
Furniture Components - Furniture Components net sales increased 23% to $59.1 million in 2010 from $48.2 million in 2009 primarily due to an increase in customer order rates across most customers resulting from improved economic conditions in North America. Gross margin percentage increased approximately 10% in 2010 compared to 2009. Income from operations increased from a loss of $4.7 million in 2009 to income of $3.4 million in 2010. The increases in the gross margin percentage and income from operations are primarily the result of (i) a $6.6 million increase in variable contribution primarily as a result of higher sales and improved production efficiencies directly resulting from the higher sales, (ii) improved leverage of fixed manufacturing costs due to the significant increase in sales and continued control of costs and (iii) lower selling, general and administrative costs primarily due to a $2.2 million decrease in litigation expense which was partially offset by limited cost increases in response to the higher sales and the negative impact of changes in currency exchange rates.
Furniture Components net sales decreased 37% to $48.2 million in 2009 from $76.4 million in 2008 primarily due to lower order rates from most of our customers resulting from unfavorable economic conditions in North America. Gross margin percentage decreased approximately 8% in 2009 compared to 2008. Operating income decreased to a loss of $4.7 million in 2009 as compared to income of $9.2 million in 2008. The decreases in the gross margin percentage and income from operations are primarily the result of approximately $2.3 million in reduced fixed manufacturing cost coverage from lower sales and the related under-utilization of capacity combined with approximately $4.6 million of patent litigation expenses recorded in selling, general and administrative expense partially offset by reduced fixed manufacturing costs of approximately $2.4 million and reduced selling, general and administrative expenses of approximately $1.2 million in response to lower sales.
Marine Components - Marine Components net sales increased 26% in 2010 as compared to 2009 primarily due to an increase in customer order rates resulting from improved economic conditions in North America. As a result of the improved labor efficiency and coverage of overhead and fixed cost from the higher sales, gross margin percentage increased approximately 20% from 2009 to 2010. Consequently, loss from operations decreased to $1.4 in 2010 as compared to a loss of $3.0 million in 2009.
Marine Components net sales decreased 46% in 2009 as compared to 2008 primarily due to a dramatic overall downturn in the marine industry. Gross margin decreased to a loss in 2009 as compared to 2008. The 2008 operating loss for Marine Components includes a goodwill impairment charge of approximately $10.1 million. Excluding the goodwill impairment charge, our loss from operations increased approximately $2.5 million in 2009 as compared to 2008. The decrease in gross margin and increase in operating loss are the result of reduced coverage of fixed costs from lower sales volume, partially offset by reduced fixed manufacturing costs of approximately $270,000 and reduced selling, general and administrative expenses of approximately $610,000 in response to lower sales.
Outlook - Demand for CompX’s products increased compared to the prior year as conditions in the overall economy improved during 2010. While changes in market demand are not within our control, we are focused on the areas we can impact. Staffing levels are continuously being evaluated in relation to sales order rates that may result in headcount adjustments, to the extent possible, to match staffing levels with demand. We expect our continuous lean manufacturing and cost improvement initiatives to positively impact our productivity and result in an efficient infrastructure that we are leveraging as sales improve. Additionally, we continue to seek opportunities to gain market share in markets we currently serve, expand into new markets and develop new product features in order to mitigate the impact of changes in demand as well as broaden our sales base.
In addition to challenges with overall demand, volatility in the cost of commodity raw materials is ongoing. The cost of these raw materials began to increase during 2010 as compared to the end of 2009 and we currently expect these costs to continue to be volatile during 2011. We generally seek to mitigate the impact of fluctuations in commodity raw material costs on our margins through improvements in production efficiencies or other operating cost reductions as well as occasionally executing larger quantity tactical spot buys of these raw materials, which may result in higher inventory balances for a period of time. In the event we are unable to offset commodity raw material cost increases with other cost reductions, it may be difficult to recover those cost increases through increased product selling prices or surcharges due to the competitive nature of the markets served by our products. Consequently, overall operating margins may be affected by commodity raw material cost pressures.
As discussed in Note 19 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, we have been involved in certain patent infringement litigation, which has in the past resulted in significant litigation expense. With regard to the litigation discussed in Note 19 where we were the defendant, we have received a favorable court ruling and dismissal of the patent infringement claims and do not expect to incur any significant additional costs relating to this litigation. With regard to the litigation where we received a favorable judgment for patent infringement against a competitor, we may incur costs during 2011 that could be material since this competitor is appealing the judgment.
The U.S. dollar weakened in 2010 in comparison to the Canadian dollar and the New Taiwan dollar, which are the primary currencies of our non-U.S. operations. We currently expect the U.S. dollar to continue to weaken during 2011 or remain below the rates that were in effect in 2010, which will likely have a negative impact on our 2011 results in comparison to 2010. When practical, we will seek to mitigate the negative impact of changes in currency exchange rates on our results by entering into currency hedging contracts. However, such strategies can not fully mitigate the negative impact of changes in currency exchange rates.
General corporate and other items, interest and dividend income, interest expense, provision for income taxes (benefit), noncontrolling interest and related party transactions
Insurance recoveries – We have agreements with certain insurance carriers pursuant to which the carriers reimburse us for a portion of our past lead pigment and asbestos litigation defense costs. Insurance recoveries include amounts we received from these insurance carriers.
The agreements with certain of our insurance carriers also include reimbursement for a portion of our future litigation defense costs. We are not able to determine how much we will ultimately recover from these carriers for defense costs incurred by us because of certain issues that arise regarding which defense costs qualify for reimbursement. Accordingly, these insurance recoveries are recognized when the receipt is probable and the amount is determinable. See Note 19 to our Consolidated Financial Statements.
In addition to insurance recoveries discussed above, our insurance recoveries in 2010 include an insurance recovery recognized in the first quarter in connection with the litigation settlement discussed in Note 19 to our Consolidated Financial Statements. We had insurance coverage for a portion of the litigation settlement expense, and a substantial portion of the insurance recoveries we recognized in 2010 relates to such coverage.
Litigation settlement gains – Litigation settlement gain in 2010 relates to a $5.3 million pre-tax gain recognized for a settlement agreement we entered into with another potentially responsible party for certain environmental matters. Litigation settlement gains in 2008 and 2009 relate to the first and second closings associated with the settlement of condemnation proceedings on certain real property we formerly owned that is subject to environmental remediation. See Note 19 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Litigation settlement expense and corporate expense – The $32.2 million litigation settlement expense is discussed in Note 19 to our Consolidated Financial Statements. Corporate expenses were $15.6 million in 2010, $7.9 million or 34% lower than in 2009 primarily due to lower litigation and related costs (excluding the legal settlement expense discussed in Note 19) and lower environmental expense in 2010. Included in 2010 corporate expenses are:
·
|
litigation and related costs of $8.8 million in 2010 compared to $12.4 million in 2009 and
|
·
|
environmental expense of $425,000 in 2010 compared to $3.7 million in 2009.
|
Corporate expenses were $23.5 million in 2009, $1.4 million or 6% lower than in 2008 primarily due to lower legal and environmental expenses as noted below, partially offset by higher pension expense as discussed in “Assumptions on defined benefit pension plans and OPEB plans”. Included in 2009 corporate expense are:
·
|
litigation and related costs of $12.4 million in 2009 compared to $14.6 million in 2008 and
|
·
|
environmental expense of $3.7 million in 2009 compared to $6.8 million in 2008.
|
We expect that net general corporate expenses in 2011 will be higher than in 2010, primarily due to higher expected litigation and related expenses. The level of our litigation and related expenses varies from period to period depending upon, among other things, the number of cases in which we are currently involved, the nature of such cases and the current stage of such cases (e.g. discovery, pre-trial motions, trial or appeal, if applicable). See Note 19 to the Consolidated Financial Statements. If our current expectations regarding the number of cases in which we expect to be involved during 2011, or the nature of such cases, were to change our corporate expenses could be higher than we currently estimate.
Obligations for environmental remediation costs are difficult to assess and estimate, and it is possible that actual costs for environmental remediation will exceed accrued amounts or that costs will be incurred in the future for sites in which we cannot currently estimate our liability. If these events were to occur in 2011, our corporate expenses would be higher than we currently estimate. In addition, we adjust our environmental accruals as further information becomes available to us or as circumstances change. Such further information or changed circumstances could result in an increase in our accrued environmental costs. See Note 19 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Gain on reduction in ownership interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc. - In November 2010, Kronos completed a secondary public offering of 8.97 million shares of its common stock in an underwritten offering for net proceeds of $337.6 million. All shares were sold to third-party investors. Upon completion of the offering our ownership of Kronos was reduced from 36.0% to 30.4%. As a result of such reduction in our ownership interest in Kronos, in the fourth quarter of 2010 we recognized a $78.9 million pre-tax gain, representing the increase in our proportionate interest in Kronos’ net assets from immediately prior to immediately following Kronos’ stock issuance. See Note 6 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Interest and dividend income – Interest and dividend income in 2010 decreased $.3 million from 2009 primarily due to lower cash available for investment. Interest and dividend income in 2009 decreased $5.3 million from 2008 primarily due to the interest received in April 2008 on certain escrow funds we became entitled to as part of a litigation settlement agreement. We recognized this as interest income during the second quarter of 2008.
Interest and dividend income fluctuates in part based upon the amount of funds invested and yields thereon. We expect that interest income will be lower in 2011 than 2010 primarily due to lower cash available for investment.
Interest expense - Interest expense in 2010 increased $.4 million primarily due to interest paid on a promissory note related to a litigation settlement during 2010 (3.25% at December 31, 2010) and interest paid on a promissory note payable to Valhi (6% at December 31, 2010). See Notes 19 and 17 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Substantially all of our interest expense in 2008 and 2009 relates to CompX. Interest expense on the note payable to TIMET was approximately $2.2 million in 2007, $.8 million in 2008 and $.6 million in 2010. Interest rates were 5.05% at December 31, 2008, 1.25% at December 31, 2009 and 1.30% at December 31, 2010.
Provision (benefit) for income taxes - We recognized income tax expense of $40.5 million in 2010 compared to a benefit of $10.3 million in 2009 and expense of $14.9 million in 2008. In accordance with GAAP, we recognize deferred income taxes on our undistributed equity in earnings of Kronos. We do not recognize, and we are not required to pay, income taxes to the extent we receive dividends from Kronos. Because we and Kronos are part of the same U.S. federal income tax group, any dividends we receive from Kronos are nontaxable to us. Therefore, our effective income tax rate will generally be lower than the U.S. federal statutory income tax rate in periods during which we receive dividends from Kronos. In this regard, Kronos suspended its quarterly dividend of $.25 per share beginning in the first quarter of 2009, and continued such suspension through the third quarter of 2010. In the fourth quarter of 2010, Kronos resumed its quarterly dividend of $.25 per share, and in February 2011 Kronos paid a special dividend of $1.00 per share. Such February 2011 special dividend is in addition to Kronos’ regular first quarter 2011 quarterly dividend.
See Note 15 to our Consolidated Financial Statements for a tabular reconciliation of our statutory tax expense to our actual tax expense. Some of the more significant items impacting this reconciliation are summarized below.
Our income tax expense in 2010 includes an aggregate $1.9 million provision for deferred income taxes on the pre-2005 undistributed earnings of CompX’s Taiwanese subsidiary due to reassessment of our permanent reinvestment conclusion on our non-U.S. earnings.
Our income tax benefit in 2009 includes a $.6 million benefit related to a net reduction in our reserve for uncertain tax positions primarily due certain statute of limitation expirations in the fourth quarter of 2009.
The goodwill impairment charge of $10.1 million recorded in 2008 is non-deductible goodwill for income tax purposes. See Note 7 to our Consolidated Financial Statements. Accordingly, there is no income tax benefit associated with the goodwill impairment charge for financial reporting purposes. Our income tax expense in 2008 includes a $2.1 million benefit related to a net reduction in our reserve for uncertain tax positions primarily due to certain statute of limitation expirations in the fourth quarter of 2008.
Noncontrolling interest – Noncontrolling interest in net income of subsidiary increased $.7 million in 2010 as compared to 2009. This increase is due to higher earnings for CompX in 2010 as compared to a net loss in 2009.
Noncontrolling interest in net loss of subsidiary decreased $.1 million in 2009 as compared to 2008. This increase is due to a lower net loss for CompX in 2009.
Related party transactions – We are a party to certain transactions with related parties. See Notes 1 and 17 to the Consolidated Financial Statements. It is our policy to engage in transactions with related parties on terms, in our opinion, no less favorable to us than we could obtain from unrelated parties.
Recent accounting pronouncements - See Note 21 to our Consolidated Financial Statements.
Equity in earnings (losses) of Kronos Worldwide, Inc.
|
|
Years ended December 31,
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
2008- |
|
|
|
2009- |
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions)
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$ |
1,316.9 |
|
|
$ |
1,142.0 |
|
|
$ |
1,449.7 |
|
|
|
(13 |
)% |
|
|
27 |
% |
Cost of sales
|
|
|
1,096.3 |
|
|
|
1,011.7 |
|
|
|
1,104.4 |
|
|
|
(8 |
)% |
|
|
9 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin
|
|
$ |
220.6 |
|
|
$ |
130.3 |
|
|
$ |
345.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from operations
|
|
$ |
47.2 |
|
|
$ |
(15.7 |
) |
|
$ |
178.4 |
|
|
|
(133 |
)% |
|
n.m.
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(42.2 |
) |
|
|
(41.4 |
) |
|
|
(38.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income loss before income taxes
|
|
|
6.0 |
|
|
|
(56.9 |
) |
|
|
140.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for income taxes (benefit)
|
|
|
(3.0 |
) |
|
|
(22.2 |
) |
|
|
9.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
9.0 |
|
|
$ |
(34.7 |
) |
|
$ |
130.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of net sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
83 |
% |
|
|
89 |
% |
|
|
76 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from operations
|
|
|
4 |
% |
|
|
(2 |
)% |
|
|
12 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings (losses) of Kronos Worldwide, Inc.
|
|
$ |
3.2 |
|
|
$ |
(12.5 |
) |
|
$ |
45.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TiO2 operating statistics:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales volumes*
|
|
|
478 |
|
|
|
445 |
|
|
|
528 |
|
|
|
(7 |
)% |
|
|
19 |
% |
Production volumes*
|
|
|
514 |
|
|
|
402 |
|
|
|
524 |
|
|
|
(22 |
)% |
|
|
30 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in TiO2 net sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TiO2 product pricing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
)% |
|
|
11 |
% |
TiO2 sales volumes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
19 |
|
TiO2 product mix
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
Changes in currency exchange rates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13 |
)% |
|
|
27 |
% |
|
________________________________
|
* Thousands of metric tons
n.m. - not meaningful
Current TiO2 industry conditions and 2010 overview – Throughout 2010, global customer demand for Kronos’ TiO2 products continued to strengthen, and its production facilities operated at near full capacity rates. Kronos believes that inventories throughout the TiO2 industry remain at historically low levels despite efforts of the major TiO2 producers to operate their facilities at near full capacity. As a result of improved TiO2 industry conditions, Kronos implemented significant increases in TiO2 selling prices during 2010 that resulted in increased profitability and cash flows. Even with such increased profitability, Kronos currently believes that profit margins are significantly lower than necessary to reasonably justify greenfield or other major expansions of TiO2 capacity. Provided that global demand for TiO2 products remains strong, Kronos expects that the low level of worldwide TiO2 inventories will continue for several years, and it anticipates further implementation of TiO2 selling price increases. Based on these positive market dynamics in the TiO2 industry, Kronos expects its profitability and cash flows to significantly increase in 2011 and the foreseeable future.
Net sales – As a result of the above conditions in the TiO2 industry, Kronos’ net sales increased 27% or $307.7 million in 2010 compared to 2009, primarily due to a 19% increase in sales volumes and an 11% increase in average selling prices. In addition, Kronos estimates that the unfavorable effect of changes in currency exchange rates decreased net sales by approximately $36 million, or 3%, as compared to the same period in 2009. TiO2 selling prices will increase or decrease generally as a result of competitive market pressures and changes in the relative level of supply and demand. Based on the current conditions in the TiO2 industry, Kronos currently expects that average selling prices in 2011 will be significantly higher than the average selling prices in 2010 and expects demand in 2011 will exceed 2010 levels.
Kronos’ net sales decreased 13% or $174.9 million in 2009 compared to 2008, primarily due to a 7% decrease in sales volumes and a 1% decrease in average selling prices. Variations in grades of products sold unfavorably impacted net sales by 2%. In addition, Kronos estimates the unfavorable effect of changes in currency exchange rates decreased net sales by approximately $35 million, or 3%, as compared to the same period in 2008. TiO2 selling prices generally follow industry trends and prices will increase or decrease generally as a result of competitive market pressures. As a result of these market pressures, Kronos’ average TiO2 prices in 2009 were 1% lower than in the prior year. During the first half of 2009, Kronos’ average selling prices were generally declining, as it faced weak demand and excessive inventory levels. Beginning mid-2009, Kronos and its competitors announced various price increases. A portion of these price increase announcements were implemented during the third and fourth quarters of 2009, and as a result Kronos’ average selling price at the end of the second half of 2009 was 3% higher than at the end of the first half of 2009. Kronos’ 7% decrease in sales volumes in 2009 was primarily due to lower sales volumes in Europe and North America as a result of a global weakening in demand due to poor overall economic conditions, principally in the first half of 2009.
Cost of sales – Kronos’ cost of sales increased $92.7 million or 9% in 2010 compared to 2009 due to the net impact of a 30% increase in TiO2 production volumes for a new production record of 524,000 metric tons, a 19% increase in sales volumes, an increase in maintenance costs of $25.2 million and higher raw material costs of $4.5 million. In addition, cost of sales in 2010 was negatively impacted by approximately $15 million as a result of higher production costs in 2010 at Kronos’ ilmenite mines in Norway. Cost of sales as a percentage of net sales decreased to 76% in 2010 compared to 89% in 2009 primarily due to higher selling prices in 2010 and the significantly higher production volumes in 2010, as Kronos implemented temporary plant curtailments during the first half of 2009 in order to reduce finished goods inventories to an appropriate level. Such temporary plant curtailments resulted in approximately $80 million of unabsorbed fixed production costs which were charged directly to cost of sales in the first six months of 2009.
Kronos’ cost of sales decreased 8% or $84.6 million in 2009 compared to 2008 primarily due to the impact of a 7% decrease in sales volumes, lower raw material costs of $11.6 million, a decrease in maintenance costs of $29.8 million as part of its efforts to reduce operating costs where possible and currency fluctuations (primarily the euro). Cost of sales as a percentage of net sales increased to 89% in the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to 83% in 2008 primarily due to the unfavorable effects of the significant amount of unabsorbed fixed production costs resulting from reduced production volumes during the first six months of 2009. TiO2 production volumes decreased due to temporary plant curtailments during the first six months of 2009 that resulted in approximately $80 million of unabsorbed fixed production costs which were charged directly to cost of sales in the first six months of 2009.
Income (loss) from operations – Kronos’ income from operations increased by $194.1 million from a loss of $15.7 million in 2009 to income from operations of $178.4 million in 2010. Income (loss) from operations as a percentage of net sales increased to 12% in 2010 from (2)% in 2009. This increase is driven by the improvement in gross margin, which increased to 24% in 2010 compared to 11% in 2009. Kronos’ gross margin increased primarily because of higher sales volumes, higher selling prices and lower manufacturing costs per ton resulting from higher production volumes. However, changes in currency exchange rates have negatively affected Kronos’ gross margin and income from operations. Kronos estimates that changes in currency exchange rates decreased income from operations by approximately $27 million in 2010 as compared to 2009.
Kronos’ income (loss) from operations declined by $62.9 million from income of $47.2 million in 2008 to a loss from operations of $15.7 million in 2009. Income (loss) from operations as a percentage of net sales declined to (2)% in 2009 from 4% in 2008. This decrease is driven by the decline in gross margin, which fell to 11% in 2009 compared to 17% in 2008. Kronos’ gross margin decreased primarily because of the significant amount of unabsorbed fixed production costs resulting from the production curtailments implemented during the first six months of 2009 as well as the effect of lower sales volumes. However, changes in currency rates have positively affected Kronos’ gross margin and income (loss) from operations. Kronos estimates that changes in currency exchange rates increased income (loss) from operations by approximately $40 million in 2009 as compared to 2008.
As a percentage of net sales, selling, general and administrative expenses were relatively consistent at approximately 12% and 13% in 2010 and 2009, respectively.
Interest expense – Kronos’ interest expense decreased $2.6 million from $41.4 million in 2009 to $38.8 million in 2010 due to decreased average borrowings under its revolving credit facilities. The interest expense Kronos recognizes will also vary with fluctuations in the euro exchange rate.
Kronos’ interest expense decreased $.8 million from $42.2 million in 2008 to $41.4 million in 2009 due to changes in currency exchange rates which offset the effect of increased average borrowings under its revolving credit facilities and higher interest rates on its European credit facility.
Income taxes – Kronos’ income tax provision was $9.7 million in 2010 compared to an income tax benefit of $22.2 million in 2009. Some of the more significant items impacting this reconciliation are summarized below.
·
|
Kronos’ income tax provision in 2010 includes a $35.2 million non-cash income tax benefit related to a European Court ruling that resulted in the favorable resolution of certain income tax issues in Germany and an increase in the amount of its German corporate and trade tax net operating loss carryforwards.
|
·
|
Kronos’ income tax benefit in 2009 includes a non-cash benefit of $4.7 million related to a net decrease in its reserve for uncertain tax positions, primarily as a result of the resolution of tax audits in Belgium and Germany in the third and fourth quarters.
|
Kronos’ income tax benefit was $22.2 million in 2009 compared to $3.0 million in 2008. Some of the more significant items impacting this reconciliation are summarized below.
·
|
Kronos’ income tax benefit in 2009 includes a non-cash benefit of $4.7 million related to a net decrease in our reserve for uncertain tax positions, primarily as a result of the resolution of tax audits in Belgium and Germany in the third and fourth quarters.
|
·
|
Kronos’ income tax benefit in 2008 includes a non-cash benefit of $7.2 million relating to a European Court ruling that resulted in the favorable resolution of certain income tax issues in Germany and an increase in the amount of its German corporate and trade tax net operating loss carryforwards.
|
Effects of currency exchange rates - Kronos has substantial operations and assets located outside the United States (primarily in Germany, Belgium, Norway and Canada). The majority of its sales from non-U.S. operations are denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar, principally the euro, other major European currencies and the Canadian dollar. A portion of Kronos’ sales generated from its non-U.S. operations is denominated in the U.S. dollar. Certain raw materials used worldwide, primarily titanium-containing feedstocks, are purchased in U.S. dollars, while labor and other production costs are purchased primarily in local currencies. Consequently, the translated U.S. dollar value of Kronos’ non-U.S. sales and operating results are subject to currency exchange rate fluctuations which may favorably or unfavorably impact reported earnings and may affect the comparability of period-to-period operating results. In addition to the impact of the translation of sales and expenses over time, Kronos’ non-U.S. operations also generate currency transaction gains and losses which primarily relate to the difference between the currency exchange rates in effect when non-local currency sales or operating costs are initially accrued and when such amounts are settled with the non-local currency.
Overall, Kronos estimates that fluctuations in currency exchange rates had the following effects on its sales and income from operations for the periods indicated.
Impact of changes in currency exchange rates - 2009 vs. 2010 (in millions)
|
|
|
|
Transaction gains/(losses)recognized
|
|
|
Translation gain/loss-
impact of rate changes
|
|
|
Total currency impact
2009 vs. 2010
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Change
|
|
Impact on:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
(36 |
) |
|
$ |
(36 |
) |
Income from operations
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|