Good morning. Thank you for joining us today for our Second Quarter 2022 Conference Call and webcast. I hope this call finds you and your family in good health. I am joined today by Fernando Gonzalez, our CEO and Maher Al-Haffar, our CFO. As always, we will spend a few minutes reviewing the business and then, we will be happy to take your questions. I will now hand it over to Fernando.

Thanks Lucy and good day to everyone. The #1 challenge facing our industry at the beginning of this year was pricing and I'm quite pleased with our pricing response. Pricing for our products rose between 12% and 16%. As of second quarter, our pricing strategy has fully offset inflationary costs in dollar terms. We are now focused on the second phase of our strategy to recover 2021 margins. Despite significant macro volatility, our EMEA region demonstrated exceptional resiliency with a 17% EBITDA growth year-to-date. The Urbanization Solutions business continues to grow rapidly. While we are showing important success in our climate action target, we continue broadening and aligning our sustainability goals across our business. With regards to financial metrics, Fitch upgraded our credit rating to BB+, one notch away from our goal of an investment grade rating. Our return on capital currently at 13% continues to improve growth strategy with an acceleration in project approvals. And finally, we are embarking on the next stage of our CEMEX Go journey to evolve into a fully automated digital customer experience, the first in the industry. From the beginning of this year, we expected pricing rather than volumes to drive growth. EBITDA growth was expected to be primarily in the second half as we move out beyond the difficult first half 2021 comps that does not incorporate the surge in cost inflation since third quarter 2021. This quarter was expected to be the most difficult second quarter 2021 EBITDA representing the highest since 2007 and highest margin since 2018. So far, the year is playing out in line with those expectations. Strong growth in sales reflects a significant pricing contribution. Our pricing initiatives designed to recover 2021 margins is showing important traction with prices of our core products up double digits. Higher energy…

Thank you, Fernando. In Mexico, net sales grew on the back of double-digit pricing increases in ready-mix and aggregates volume growth. Cement volume performance largely reflects a difficult prior year comparison. Bagged cement, the majority of demand in Mexico reached the highest level in a decade in the second quarter of 2021, driven by pandemic-related home improvement and government social spending ahead of the midterm elections. Since that time, cement volumes have declined, driven by a normalization in bagged cement while bulk product grows. With much of this adjustment process now behind us and bagged cement at pre-pandemic levels, we expect volume comparisons to ease in the second half. To illustrate, second quarter average daily cement volumes are roughly the same level as second half 2021. Volumes continue to be driven by the industrial sector with the build-out of electronics and furniture manufacturing in the northern states. The commercial sector is also improved supported by hotel construction as the country embraces an influx of tourists. The decline in EBITDA and margin largely reflects cement volume decline, continued energy cost pressure, supply chain disruptions and product mix effect. We encountered significant rail disruptions in the quarter, causing a shift from rail to more expensive truck transport and reducing our exports to the U.S. We expect some improvement in supply chain in the second half, while we continue to implement our pricing and cost containment initiatives. We have announced double-digit price increases effective July 1. Our Urbanization Solutions business continues to expand on the back of our waste management, admixtures and Consturama Supply operations. Year-to-date, we co-processed 250,000 tonnes of waste, equivalent to 15% of the waste produced by Mexico City for that period and reached a record alternative fuel usage of 33.6% in the quarter. Finally, while our export levels were…

Thank you, Lucy, and good day to everyone. As Fernando mentioned, we are pleased with our strong pricing traction, which accelerated during the second quarter and more than compensated for inflation. We remain committed to fully recovering our 2021 margins. We had positive free cash flow after maintenance CapEx in the quarter, but lower than last year due to working capital and maintenance CapEx. Investments in working capital increased due to higher sales and inventory as markets continue to face supply chain bottlenecks. I would like to highlight that our working capital cycle is seasonal and investments in the first half of the year typically turn around during the second half. The increase in maintenance CapEx relates primarily to the delayed delivery of mobile equipment due to supply chain disruptions. During the quarter, we generated net income of $265 million, down 2% versus the prior year. Our return on capital employed for the last 12 months stood at 13.2%, excluding goodwill, well above our cost of capital. In light of recent market volatility, I would like to do a recap of the key aspects of our financial strategy. First, with no relevant debt maturities before 2025, there's no need to tap the debt capital markets anytime soon. We have, however, taken advantage of this volatility to execute accretive transactions such as tendering for our bonds and buying back our shares. Second, we have very limited exposure to rising interest rates with approximately 81% of our debt at fixed rates. The remaining floating is primarily exposed to euro rates with substantially lower base rates than U.S. dollars. We are well positioned to mitigate that associated with currency fluctuations in most of our non-U.S. dollar markets as well as protecting our interest expense from rising rates. We had a negative EBITDA impact…

Our performance so far is in line with our expectations at the beginning of the year. And while things have gone as expected, we must acknowledge increased downside risk amidst rising economic uncertainties. Therefore, we are adjusting our EBITDA guidance from mid-single-digit growth to low to mid-single-digit growth. While the outlook for fuels is improving, we are maintaining our energy guidance. We now expect maintenance CapEx to increase by $100 million to $800 million, with anticipated total CapEx of $1.3 billion. We have slightly increased our working capital investment guidance to $200 million. While it may take longer than we initially anticipated with our pricing and cost containment strategies, we are confident we can recover 2021 margins. And now back to you, Lucy.

Before we go into our Q&A session, I would like to remind you that any forward-looking statements we make today are based on our current knowledge of the markets in which we operate and could change in the future due to a variety of factors beyond our control. In addition, unless the context indicates otherwise, all references to pricing initiatives, price increases and decreases with further prices for our products. And now we will be happy to take your questions.

[Operator Instructions]. And our first question comes from Ben Theurer from Barclays. Ben?

Let me get this into one question. So we saw the step-up in maintenance and you've raised the guidance on maintenance, and I think you've talked about the acceleration of maintenance in the U.S. Is that what's been driving the SG&A cost up so much in the quarter? And is that really more of a one-time thing? And how should we think conceptually about the maintenance needs given the demand environment and being sold out and how that all puts into a framework of a potential recession in the U.S.? So just about the timing and the needs for maintenance in the current environment? That would be my question.

Sure. Ben, let me comment that in the case of the U.S., there are impacts related to energy that are similar to any other geographies, same reasons and that impact will continue happening the same way it's happening all over the company. But there are 2 other reasons why costs were higher during the second quarter or during the second half, mainly second quarter. One has to do with maintenance. In the case of maintenance, there were some maintenance expenses that were carry-forward from last year. And on top of that, there were some delays in shutdowns program for the first quarter, and those were delays to the second quarter. So we had, on the one hand, more maintenance expenses because of those delays. The shutdowns were really some of the shutdowns were really needed for the first quarter but it happened in the second quarter. And they were delayed mainly because of supply chain issues, meaning not getting all the parts needed for those shutdowns. So maintenance was a specific issue in the case of the U.S. And what you can expect is that it's not going to be repeated in the second half. By the way, maintenance in the U.S. in the second half should be much lower because around 80% of all annual shutdowns have been already done. So maintenance is not a repetitive -- is not going to be a repetitive impact for the rest of the year. And the other issue is also specific to our import sourcing. We are importing about 30% of cement that we are selling in the U.S. Most of it is Maritime transportation. So we do have some -- we did have some delays in those imports as well as some supply chain constraints in our exports from the [indiscernible] plant in Sonora to the U.S. as well as an impact in locally produced cement because of the maintenance work that were done during the second half. So those impacts because of volume constraints, we are not expecting for those to happen during the second half. So in summary, energy will continue about the same pace. We've seen some reduction in the prices of pet coke. But that is a phenomenon that is happening everywhere. And maintenance and imports, we can consider those as a very specific and one-off type of impact.

And the next question comes from Gordon Lee from BTG Pactual.

Just one question on the outlook for price increases, specifically with the sort of concerns around recession escalating, bad macro data out of the U.S., how concerned are you that you'll start seeing more pushbacks from customers, particularly in the U.S. and Europe where you've got less reliance on bagged cement. And that your ability to drive the normalization of the EBITDA margin via prices is sort of compromised by that more difficult macro environment? How big of a concern is that for you at this point?

Thanks for the question. It's not a big concern for us. I mean, we still see strong order books. We understand there are certain segments in certain markets softening or about to soften, but that has not been an issue. It was not an issue at all in the first half. We are already executing our second half pricing strategy, and we don't see any major impact because of that concern on a reserve type of scenario, reducing volumes. So, so far, so good, and we do expect the same performance or the same success in pricing execution for the rest of the year.

Maher did you want to add something?

Yes I just wanted to say that in the case of the U.S., Gordon, I mean, don't forget that imports are quite an important element. And even if there is some softness in demand as we go forward, there is that very sizable buffer that has accumulated. I mean right now, all markets are sold out, and we're having to import and people generally are short, some markets are in allocation. So I think the pricing environment going forward into the rest of -- certainly into the rest of the year and into -- I don't want to speculate into '23, but we think the supply-demand dynamics are quite favorable.

And the next question comes from the webcast from Paul Roger, BNP Paribas. It's a 2-part question. The first is, can you talk more about the green incentives for managers? What level of seniority do they apply to and what proportion of their variable compensation can be affected by sustainability performance? The second part of the question is how is the margin profile on Vertua concrete compared to OPC? And is the product sufficiently unique for any advantage to be whittled away as others start to roll out green offerings?

Sure. Thanks for the question. As I mentioned, the modified CO2 consideration in variable compensation, I think, is very relevant. It's impacting either positively or negatively our top and middle management in the company is 4,500 people, executives and technicians related to CO2 issues. And the way it's designed, it's a modifier of a base, and it can modify as much as 20% the compensation received by an executive meeting, it can increase by 10% or it can reduce by 10%. And as you can imagine, this is one of the elements that we are putting in place in our transition towards a low CO2 economy. And even though we are at early stages having implementing this very recently, it is working very well. Fortunately, the modifier is working on the plus side, meaning increasing compensation. As you know, we've been successfully reducing CO2 in cement production last year for around 4.5 percentage points. And this year, it's 3% sequentially, more than 4% compared to first half last year. So it's working very well. On the second question on Vertua. In the case of Vertua, a few considerations. The first one, Vertua is a family of products and different products in the family of Vertua do have different margins. So we cannot consider that there is only one simple margin for all the family of products included in Vertua. Remember that we are including concrete and cement with lower CO2 content, but we are including also, as part of the Vertua family, products that do have sustainability characteristics or contributions like thermal contributions, meaning allowing cost structures to reduce CO2 in their development. So I can hardly say that margins are going to behave in the manner. What I can say is that Vertua in general, do have either the same or better margins than ordinary either cement or concrete products. Now for the time being, we are concentrated in the introduction of Vertua -- we started a few years ago. Last year, we managed to sell about 20% of our volumes as Vertua labeled products. And nowadays, I mean, or in the first half, it was slightly more than 30% for both ready-mix and cement. And if you remember, we do -- we recently defined the target of having half of our product portfolio of Vertua products by 2025.

Thank you, Fernando. The next question comes from Vanessa Quiroga from Credit Suisse. Vanessa?

I have a tough time choosing just one, but let me go with a little bit more forward-looking questions regarding the infra bill and -- I mean, what scenarios are you going be vary in terms of potential delays of execution of those projects, given the supply chain constraints and inflation of overall materials. And I guess is that -- I mean if imports are a buffer in case of lower volumes or lower demand in general, would that impact rising dynamics going forward?

Sorry, I'm not sure I got the last part, Vanessa, can you repeat it about import volumes and prices.

Yes, imports came down because demand is softer, if that would affect pricing dynamics?

I see. So let me answer that one first. As Maher mentioned, most of our markets were sold out in most of our markets or in all of our markets. And the situation in those markets in most of them is that they are on allocation. So what you can expect -- and it's a robust thing. I mean it's a midterm thing. We don't think this is going to be changing in the next 3 or 4 months or meaning for the rest of the year. So imports are playing a very important role, complementing the supplies of cement into these markets. Now what if we start seeing volumes easing, meaning the housing sector softening and the likes? Then the most natural thing to happen is for import volumes to being reduced. Does that affect pricing dynamics in the market? I don't think so. I think that considering current import -- prices of imports, allocation in the markets and solid growth in the U.S. in several markets, I don't think that will be a negative on the pricing strategy. It might be the other way around.

I was just going to add, Vanessa, that very quickly, we don't have any change in outlook regarding infrastructure and the Infrastructure Bill rolling out next year. We're still very optimistic that it will add to volume. I would also say that the news overnight of package of the second round of stimulus in the United States having gone through the Senate, but it looks as though the Democrat at least have reached consensus around it should also be positive going forward. So in the stimulus situation in the U.S., I think looks very good right now. And now to move on. The next question comes from Nik Lippmann from Morgan Stanley.

Could you provide a bit more color on the sort of regional pricing, U.S., is a big country, sort of the Florida, Georgia market versus Texas versus the Pacific market, if you will, that would be very helpful.

As you know, we don't provide that level of detail in terms of state by state. But let me tell you what I think it's pretty evident in terms of our pricing in the United States. Pricing for our 3 core products is up between 12% and 17% year-over-year in the U.S. As you know, in April, we had increases that represented 60% of our cement volumes that took place in the Mid-South, Arizona, Texas, Northern California. And in those markets, we saw a 9% sequential increases on average. We have additional pricing increases that we already announced in Florida for June, where 20% of our volumes are repricing and we're expecting kind of mid-single digits sequentially there. And in July, we have implemented and we've announced additional pricing increases really for the remainder of our cement volumes, 80% ex Florida, we had announced pricing increases of around $13 a ton. So I think, in general, extremely strong pricing traction of very much a sold-out market. Just going back to, I think, an earlier question that was asked, the supply disruptions that we had in the United States, both because of the maintenance as well as disruptions to import supply represented about 11% of our quarterly volume. Those are volumes, if we had them, we would have sold them. So the issue here is the supply issue at the moment, and I just want to be very clear about that. So hopefully, that answers your question.

And also, Lucy, I would also add, I mean, again, Nik, I mean you have to take a look at the percentage of total demand last year and expected this year that is coming from imports. It's a very sizable percentage of the total market. And so, that again kind of supports the hypothesis of the increasing prices and elasticity of demand for our products is very low. So we haven't seen any kind of demand disruption or softness as a consequence of the pricing and other building materials are doing the same. I mean, so it's not like we're getting more expensive compared to other building materials or other options.

The next question comes from Anne Milne from Bank of America.

My question has to do with something you mentioned in the section of the presentation where you were talking about emission reductions. You mentioned that there were a number of plants that are already operating below CEMEX's 2030 goal. I was just wondering if you could, one, give us a little bit of an update of maybe why they are? Is it the form of fuels they're using or the age of the plants or other factors? And maybe just an update on your initiatives outside of Europe where you're most active right now in the reduction of emissions or alternative fuels?

Okay. Thanks for the question. Yes, 8 plants are ready with -- generating less than 475 kilos per ton of sanitation materials, that is our target for 2030. And not all of them are in Europe. I think it's about half of them in Europe and the rest in Mexico and other countries. If you remember on the elements of our strategy and the reason I'm addressing this is because there is not only one reason. Given that we are already introducing lower carbon content products in the market, again, I mentioned 30% already in our way to increase it to 50%, then that allow us of composite cement with lower clinker factor. And of course, with a lower clinker factor means lower CO2 content per ton of cementitious meaning adding more pozzolans, limestone, slag, fly ash, whatever the material that we can use with cementitious properties. So let me explain one example. In the case of the U.S., the norms on products are completely different than the ones that do exist in Europe. So it's been kind of in the last few years that the rules have been adjusting considering this type of composite cement for most type of works U.S.-wide -- and that's why, for instance, in our case, we have already adopted 6 out of our 8 plants to produce limestone cement, allowing us for the first time to reduce clinker factor in the U.S., and this is norm-derived opportunity. So that's one example. The other example is that we do continue doing progress, and I'm very pleased with the progress we have done in the use of alternative fuels. We are increasing alternative fuels already up to 33% -- around 33% worldwide. That's an increase of about 5 percentage points. For a year, it is the…

The next question comes from Yassine Touahri from On Field Research. Yassine?

Yes. Can you hear me?

Yes, yes,

So I would have just one question on your imports. Could you let me know what is the proportion of your U.S. cement sales that are imported as a percentage?

I think, Fernando, the question was what percentage of our U.S. cement sales are imported.

The number I have in your memory is like it's around 30%.

Yes, it is Fernando. For the second quarter, around that level.

Okay. And we have time now for one more question. The next question comes from Franco Suarez from Scotiabank.

It's very helpful the color that you're sharing today. The question that I have relates with your overall comments on pressures related with logistics, the higher use of trucks rather the cheaper sources of shipping cement. Do you think that you need to implement more CapEx in, say, ground terminals, multimodal terminals to overcome this feature? Is that actually needed or perhaps is just something that because of the disruptions eventually will fade out, and you will not need to enhance in any way your overall terminals and your -- all the logistics side of your -- to make sure that these additional costs are not permanent?

Thanks, Franco In some cases, there are certain investments because of the way the market has been evolving, meaning debottlenecking or expanding terminals, maritime or land terminals like, for instance, the expansion we did in our terminal in Dallas, Texas. We almost doubled the capacity to bring cement from our Balcones plant to that market. So those are investments that are regular investments in order to cope with the way demand has been evolving. Now the main issue that is impacting us is other type of supply chain disruptions like, for instance, domestic railroads in the U.S., they are having issues the same than the issues we had with -- I referred to some supply chain issues on our exports from Mexico to the U.S. and all of those issues are related to railroad in Mexico, which, of course, it's been improving and improving as we've seen in the last few days and weeks. But in those situations, there is very little you can do except for try to work together with railroads and use alternative transportation means, which, as you can imagine, are more expensive. But our industry is no different towards the industries is going through material supply chain disruptions. We've been requesting, for instance, in advance changes in our procurement practices. We are requesting, in advance, mobile equipment that we think we need to replace. But meaning well in advance, not 3 or 6 months, a year or even more. So those are the type of disruptions that we are dealing with.

We appreciate you joining us today for our second quarter webcast and conference call. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Investor Relations, and we look forward to seeing you again on our third quarter results webcast. Many thanks.

Thank you for your participation in today's conference. This concludes the presentation. You may now disconnect. Good day.