Aton - Dinnur Galikhanov - Russian Steel Makers - 2010.10.25 (Eng)

Dinnur Galikhanov +7 (495) 213 0338 [email protected] Ilya Makarov +7 (495) 777 9090 ext. 2644 [email protected]

For professional investors only. This document has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research. Please refer to important disclosures and analyst certification at the end of this document

With this report we initiate coverage of four major Russian steelmakers: Evraz, MMK and Severstal with BUY ratings, and NLMK with a HOLD due to its strong performance in recent months. We believe that these companies offer a unique set of features that make them attractive in the currently uncertain economic climate. Russian steel output is on a steady recovery path, in our view. It took the sector over a year to rebound from the lows of 2008 and demonstrate reasonable upward output dynamics. Despite facing challenges on numerous fronts, once the steel market began showing signs of recovery, Russian steelmakers managed to cut costs, arrest margin deterioration and improve their profitability. Some capacity still on hold, which offers additional upside for domestic producers. Demand for some steel products (especially long steel) has not yet recovered fully due to the lack of construction activity and infrastructure spending. While the resulting reduction in revenue has a negative impact on financials in the short term, longer term we may see additional upside once the demand for long steel products recovers. High degree of vertical integration drives profitability improvements. Russian steels are reasonably well integrated into raw materials. Although the level of integration varies from producer to producer, overall it is quite high compared to international peers. This was one of the major factors that allowed Russian steelmakers to markedly improve their financial performance in 1H10. It should also allow the companies to maintain their lead in profitability over international peers going forward. Active debt market participation reduces debt woes. There has been a flurry of debt market activity as all major Russian steelmakers have accessed the markets on numerous occasions in 2009‐10 for both rouble‐denominated and foreign currency debt and continue doing so as the cost of debt continues to fall. As a result, while some steelmakers remain heavily indebted, the maturity of that debt has lengthened, giving them the breathing space much needed during times of economic uncertainty. Further economic recovery in Russia should continue to benefit steel companies. As the Russian economy enters 2011, the positive effect of the low base will diminish. However, we see several factors that should continue to support the country’s economic growth and the performance of steelmakers in particular: growing consumer discretionary spending, increased fixed investment and government support for steel‐intensive industries. We believe flat steel (MMK, NLMK, Severstal) has better prospects than long (Evraz) in the short‐to‐medium term. Government stimuli and discretionary consumer spending support demand for goods containing a high proportion of flat steel (white goods, automobiles, machinery and equipment). As a result, Russian output of flat steel has already recovered to near pre‐crisis levels: while actual consumption remains below 2008 levels, the overall trend appears positive, in our view. The long steel market has yet to recover fully from the crisis. A sharp drop in construction activity following the recent financial crisis means the market for long steel is taking much longer to bounce back, with the recovery prone to volatility and wide seasonal swings. We believe that growing fixed investment and a renewed focus on Russian infrastructure development should start to improve the situation, although the recovery will continue to be sluggish and prolonged in our opinion.

EQUITY RESEARCH

METALS & MINING

25 October 2010

RUSSIAN STEELMAKERS Round up Your Flats, Short Wait for Longs

Sector target value $70.5bn

Potential upside 15%

Note: Prices as of close 21 Oct 2010 throughout the report. Local share data is for information only and was calculated using each companies’ common share / GDR ratio and prevailing USD/RUB exchange rate

3M stock, index and steel performance

‐20% 0% 20% 40%

Arcelor Mittal

Mechel ADR

SBB HRC Tracker

BBG Iron/Steel Co

Index

RTS Index

SBB Rebar Tracker

Baosteel

NLMK GDR

Evraz GDR

MMK GDR

Severstal GDR

Source: Bloomberga

Company Ticker Rating Target price

($/share)

Potential upside

Evraz Group EVR LI BUY 35.33 18%

MMK MMK BUY 15.33 22%

NLMK NLMK HOLD 35.55 1%

Severstal SVST BUY 18.57 24%

YtD stock, index and steel performance

‐50% 0% 50% 100%

Baosteel

Arcelor Mittal

BBG Iron/Steel Co

Index

Evraz GDR

RTS Index

MMK GDR

NLMK GDR

Mechel ADR

SBB HRC Tracker

SBB Rebar Tracker

Severstal GDR

Source: Bloomberga

2

Contents

Investment Case...................................................................................................3

Drilling Down on the Main Sector Drivers .........................................................10

Economic Backdrop – Growth without the Base Effect ........................................... 10 Global Steel Output – Excess Capacity Still on Hold................................................. 11 US and EU Steel Output – Two Different Recovery Stories...................................... 12 China – Enough Domestic Demand to Keep Pressure off Export Markets............... 14 Russia Showing Tentative Signs of Steel Market Recovery ...................................... 16

Price Forecasts ...................................................................................................21

EVRAZ GROUP ....................................................................................................26

Recent Financial Performance and Forward Projections ......................................... 27 Valuation .................................................................................................................. 28 Financial Accounts.................................................................................................... 29

MAGNITOGORSK IRON & STEEL.........................................................................31

Strategy Firmly Focused on the Domestic Market ................................................... 32 Valuation .................................................................................................................. 34 Financial Accounts.................................................................................................... 35

NOVOLIPETSK STEEL...........................................................................................37

Investment Case....................................................................................................... 38 Valuation .................................................................................................................. 42 Financial Accounts.................................................................................................... 43

SEVERSTAL..........................................................................................................45

Potential Gold IPO – Lessons from Norilsk’s Polyus Spin‐Off................................... 46 US Expansion Put on Hold ........................................................................................ 48 Valuation .................................................................................................................. 50 Financial Accounts.................................................................................................... 51

3

Investment Case We initiate coverage of Russian steel producers at a time when a wide range of global economic factors are drawing investor attention and perhaps obscuring the current situation and its implications for short‐to‐medium‐term growth. However, several key indicators support our positive outlook for the Russian economy and the country’s steelmakers in particular. Russia’s steel market is enjoying a rapid pace of recovery. Russia’s steel market suffered a severe downturn as a result of the financial crisis, with monthly crude steel output falling by over 50% from the peak of 6.8mn tonnes in May 2008 to the low point of 3.3mn tonnes in December of that year (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Russian crude steel output showing some signs of recovery

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Jan 08 Jul 08 Jan 09 Jul 09 Jan 10 Jul 10

Russ ia Steel Output (mnt)

Source: World Steel Association

The recovery was unsteady, but the government’s support of steel‐intensive industries provided a needed boost to domestic demand. As we discuss later in the report, it is too early to assume a full recovery, as Russian steelmakers still face many challenges. However, the pace of recovery in Russia has been more encouraging to date than in developed markets such as the US and EU. In contrast to its international counterparts, the Russian government has been quite active ‐ and selective ‐ in providing support to key industries, most of which (automobile manufacturing, machine building, oil and gas and energy) are major consumers of steel. While the US Senate continues to debate new stimulus measures and EU governments are forced to enact austerity policies, the Russian government has committed itself to supporting the country’s manufacturing industries. A higher degree of vertical integration allows Russian steelmakers to outperform their global peers. Russian steelmakers enjoy one of the highest degrees of vertical integration among their industry peers. While the degree of self‐sufficiency varies from company to company, the overall degree of vertical integration is quite high compared to global peers (Figure 2).

4

Figure 2: Raw material self‐sufficiency of Russian steelmakers – 1H10 (%)

91%

84%

30%35%

100%

100%0%

80%100%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Iron OreCoking Coal

Iron OreCoking Coal

ScrapIron Ore

Coking CoalScrap

Iron Ore

Coking Coal

Evraz

MMK

NLM

KSeverstal

Source: Company data, Aton estimates

In fact, the degree of integration for most of the Russian steelmakers far exceeds the levels achieved by industry leaders such as ArcelorMittal (60% self‐coverage in iron ore, 20% in coal in 4Q09). Even MMK, which has long been one of the least integrated of the Russian steel companies, has the potential to bring its self‐sufficiency in coal up to 80% and in iron ore to 50% in the medium term Russian steelmaker margins recovered strongly in 2010, with the market broadly expecting outperformance over global peers to continue in 2011. Russian steelmakers demonstrated a significant improvement in financial performance in the first half of 2010. Behind the improvements are factors such as successful cost reduction (some of which was due to the availability of own raw materials, as described above), the quicker pace of steel market recovery compared to some other major regions, improved product mix on the back of modernisation, which allowed steelmakers to increase the share of high value‐added products, and many others. As a result, the average EBITDA margin of the five major Russian steelmakers is expected to reach 24% in 2010 (based on Bloomberg consensus) vs the 2009 average of less than 15% (see Figure 3 for a breakdown by company).

Figure 3: Margin recovery in 2010 forecast for Russian steels Figure 4: Leadership in profitability expected to continue in 2011

22.3%

11.3%

20.1%

6.2%

32.6%

26.2%

19.3%

12.7%

21.6% 21.6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

NLM

K

Mechel

MMK

Evraz

Severstal

2009 EBITDA margins 2010E EBITDA margins

2011E EBITDA margins

26.9%

21.1% 20.9% 19.4%16.3%

12.7%

32.2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

NLM

K

Mechel

MMK

Evraz

Severstal

Avg. Int.

Emerging

Markets

Avg. Int.

Developed

Markets

Sources (Figures 3 and 4): Bloomberg consensus

Despite continued pressure from costs, the market expects Russian steelmakers to maintain their leadership (at least in a financial sense) going into 2011. The numbers in Figure 4 are based on Bloomberg consensus for Russian companies and a selection of international peers in both developed and emerging markets. Again, the average EBITDA margin forecast for our five Russian majors in 2011 is around 24% vs the emerging markets average of 16% and the developed markets average of 12%.

5

Debt refinancing has helped prolong maturities, reducing the pressure on steelmakers. The Russian steelmakers covered in our report, particularly Evraz and Severstal, continue to be encumbered by high debt loads (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Debt load ($mn) – still high for some but with longer maturities

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

YE09

1H10

YE09

1H10

YE09

1H10

YE09

1H10

NLMK MMK Severstal Evraz

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

Net debt ($mn) Cash ($mn) Net debt / 12M EBITDA ratio (x)


Steelmakers have taken advantage of the market’s appetite for corporate lending to refinance their debt, prolong maturities and in most cases significantly reduce interest rates. Dividend payments may again be a possibility for some stocks. After a break in dividend payments during 2009, following the financial crisis, a resumption of payments is possible for some stocks. MMK and NLMK have been quite conservative in their dividend policies, with payout ratios never rising far above 30% in good times and falling to around 15‐20% following the onset of the crisis in 2008 (Figure 5).

Figure 5: MMK and NLMK stick with conservative dividend policies

42.0%37.7%

31.4%32.5%

20.7% 15.9%

60.3%66.1%

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

NLM

K

MMK

SVST

EVR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Amount ($mn) 2007 Amount ($mn) 2008

Pay out ratio (%) 2007 Pay out ratio (%) 2008

Most balanced

dividend policies

Source: Company data

Both companies have a relatively benign debt load and are now in a position to resume their dividend programmes on the back of improved financials. NLMK has already announced a 1H10 dividend of rouble 0.62/share, a payout of around 21% of its US GAAP net income for the period. MMK paid a dividend of rouble 0.37/share in 1H10 following strong FY09 results. We expect MMK and NLMK to continue paying dividends going forward, gradually bringing their payout ratios back to pre‐crisis levels. Russian steel company valuations should reflect their expected outperformance, in our view. Apart from NLMK and Evraz, Russian steelmakers are currently trading at a relative discount to their international peers on P/E basis, with the discount ranging from 2% to 9%. At the same time the stocks are trading at a premium on EV/EBITDA basis, ranging from 1% to 9%, apart from Severstal and Mechel, which are trading at a deep discount (Figure 6).

6

Figure 6: Comparative multiples of peers based on 2011E‐2012E market estimates

Country MktCap ($mn)

EV/EBITDA P/E EBITDA

margin (%) Net margin

(%)

2011E 2012E 2011E 2012E 2011E 2011E

Developed markets

Nucor Corp US 11,957 6.6 5.1 15.8 10.4 11% 4%

Nippon Steel Japan 22,109 5.5 4.9 11.9 10.1 13% 4%

US Steel US 6,063 4.9 4.1 9.3 6.9 9% 3%

ArcelorMittal Luxembourg 54,575 5.9 5.1 10.1 8.2 14% 6%

ThyssenKrupp Germany 18,928 3.9 3.3 13.0 8.8 8% 2%

Median, DM peers 5.7 4.9 12.1 8.8 11% 2%

Emerging markets

Gerdau Brazil 15,900 5.0 4.3 8.0 6.8 20% 9%

Tata Steel India 12,791 6.5 5.8 9.3 7.9 14% 6%

China Steel Taiwan 13,617 10.0 9.5 12.2 10.1 18% 13%

Baoshan Iron & Steel China 19,217 5.2 4.9 9.9 8.4 16% 6%

POSCO South Korea 37,442 4.9 4.6 8.3 8.0 23% 14%

Wuhan Iron&Steel China 6,103 6.0 5.4 12.0 9.4 14% 4%

Maanshan Iron&Steel China 4,576 4.3 4.6 14.1 10.9 15% 3%

Hyundai Steel South Korea 8,121 6.7 6.1 8.4 7.4 15% 8%

Median, EM peers 5.9 5.1 10.5 8.6 16% 7%

Russia

Novolipetsk Steel Russia 21,036 7.1 6.0 11.5 9.4 32% 19%

Severstal Russia 15,116 5.4 4.8 9.8 8.2 20% 9%

Evraz Group Russia 13,141 6.1 5.5 11.9 8.8 22% 7%

Magnitogorsk Steel Russia 10,762 5.6 4.6 11.6 8.9 21% 9%

Mechel Russia 9,620 5.6 4.9 7.4 6.4 26% 12%

Median, Russian peers 5.6 4.9 11.5 8.8 22% 9%

Russian steel producers

Premium/Discount of:

Novolipetsk Steel 23% 20% 2% 9%

Severstal ‐6% ‐4% ‐13% ‐5%

Evraz Group 6% 10% 5% 1%

Magnitogorsk Steel ‐4% ‐9% 2% 3%

Mechel ‐3% ‐2% ‐34% ‐26%

Source: Bloomberg

Our approach to the valuation of Russian steels reflects our expectations of sustained profitability leadership over international peers. Russian steelmakers are now trading at what could be considered peak‐cycle valuations, around 11‐12x P/E and 5‐6x EV/EBITDA. We believe these valuation multiples are currently justified given the companies’ financial performance to date and expectations that they will be able to sustain their financial outperformance in the short‐to‐medium term. However, we remain conservative in our valuation approach and, with the exception of NLMK (which we value using a P/E multiple of 12 and EV/EBITDA multiple of 6 due to its leading financial position among Russian steelmakers and unique mix of high‐premium products), we value the stocks based on 10x 2011E earnings and 5x 2011E EV/EBITDA. The two multiples account for 25% each of the weighted average valuation, with a DCF valuation providing the remaining 50%. The multiples valuation allows us to account for the companies’ short‐to‐medium term financial performance and debt load, while the DCF calculation aims to reflect the growth potential of each stock and hence has a higher weighting in our valuations.

7

Figure 7 summarises our target prices for the stocks under coverage.

Figure 7: Ratings summary

Company Ticker Current price

Target price

Upside potential

Rating

$/share $/share (%)

Evraz Group (GDR) EVR LI 30.01 35.33 18% BUY

MMK (GDR) MMK LI 12.52 15.33 22% BUY

MMK (Local) MAGN RM 0.95 1.18 24% BUY

NLMK (GDR) NLMK LI 35.10 35.55 1% HOLD

NLMK (Local) NLKM RM 3.52 3.56 1% HOLD

Severstal (GDR) SVST LI 15.00 18.57 24% BUY

Severstal (Local) CHMF RM 15.05 18.57 23% BUY

Source: Bloomberg, Aton estimates

In the following tables we provide a quick summary of valuation sensitivities and other useful financial and performance data for the stocks.

Figure 8: Valuation ranges for the stocks

Company Current share price

Target price

DCF – WACC Rate 2011E P/E 2011E EV/EBITDA

$/share $/share Base +1%

Base WACC

Base ‐ 1%

8x 10x 12x 4x 5x 6x

Evraz Group (GDR) 30.01 35.33 42.43 50.25 60.45 15.10 18.87 22.64 14.13 21.96 29.80

MMK (GDR) 12.52 15.33 17.10 20.31 24.63 8.11 10.14 12.16 7.74 10.55 13.37

NLMK (GDR) 35.10 35.55 31.07 35.32 40.80 26.84 33.55 40.27 20.40 25.84 31.29

Severstal (GDR) 15.00 18.57 18.50 21.70 25.88 12.68 15.85 19.02 11.08 15.01 18.94


Figure 9: Stock performance data Evraz Group MMK NLMK Severstal

1M 6.8% 3.6% 5.6% 11.5%

3M 19.9% 32.3% 17.2% 37.1%

YtD 6.1% 12.2% 16.9% 91.7%

1Y ‐2.0% 19.0% 19.0% 80.8%

52‐week high ($) 37.90 14.31 35.75 12.80

52‐week low ($) 7.50 2.32 8.96 3.25

Combined daily t/o ($mn) 34.6 9.0 15.0 72.0

Free float (%) 17.4% 13.4% 12.9% 17.6%

Free float ($mn) 2,286 1,442 2,714 2,660

Source: Company data, Bloomberg, Aton estimates

8

Figure 10: Key valuation data Evraz Group MMK NLMK Severstal

Valuation summary:

Target price ($/GDR) 35.33 15.33 35.55 18.57

Current price ($/GDR) 30.01 12.52 35.10 15.00

Potential upside / downside (%) 17.7% 22.4% 1.3% 23.8%

Rating BUY BUY HOLD BUY

Target price ‐ Local ($/share) n/a 1.18 3.56 18.57

Current price ‐ Local ($/share) n/a 0.95 3.52 15.05

Potential upside / downside (%) n/a 23.8% 1.1% 23.4%

Rating n/a BUY HOLD BUY

Key valuation metrics:

Common shares in issue (mn) 146 11,174 5,993 1,008

Common share GDR equivalent (mn) 438 860 599 1,008

Market Cap ($mn) 13,141 10,762 21,036 15,116

Net Debt ($mn) 7,219 2,634 948 4,452

EV ($mn) 20,679 13,801 22,071 19,788

BV ($mn) 10,312 9,673 8,796 7,034

Key valuation ratios:

P/E ratios (x)

2009 n/a 46.3 97.7 n/a

2010E n/a 39.8 17.4 n/a

2011E 15.9 12.3 10.4 9.5

2012E 10.1 10.2 9.2 8.4

EV/EBITDA ratios (x)

2009 16.7 13.5 15.8 23.4

2010E 8.7 9.0 9.2 6.0

2011E 6.0 5.7 6.9 5.0

2012E 5.1 5.0 6.0 4.8

P/BV ratio (x) 1.3 1.1 2.4 1.9


9

Figure 11: Key financials Evraz Group MMK NLMK Severstal

Revenue ($mn)

2009 9,772 5,081 6,140 13,054

2010E 12,229 7,741 8,167 17,632

2011E 13,950 9,661 10,074 19,563

2012E 14,848 11,045 11,875 21,131

Adjusted EBITDA ($mn)

2009 1,237 1,023 1,370 846

2010E 2,373 1,535 2,424 3,315

2011E 3,431 2,423 3,263 3,961

2012E 4,040 2,737 3,700 4,155

EBITDA margin (%)

2009 12.7% 20.1% 22.3% 6.5%

2010E 19.4% 19.8% 29.7% 18.8%

2011E 24.6% 25.1% 32.4% 20.2%

2012E 27.2% 24.8% 31.2% 19.7%

Net income ($mn)

2009 ‐1,251 232 215 ‐1,037

2010E ‐112 270 1,208 9

2011E 826 872 2,011 1,598

2012E 1,297 1,058 2,293 1,802

Net margin (%)

2009 ‐12.8% 4.6% 3.5% ‐7.9%

2010E ‐0.9% 3.5% 14.8% 0.1%

2011E 5.9% 9.0% 20.0% 8.2%

2012E 8.7% 9.6% 19.3% 8.5%


Figure 12: Aton estimates vs Bloomberg consensus EBITDA Net income

Company 2010E 2011E 2012E 3Y

average 2010E 2011E 2012E

3Y average

Evraz Group:

Aton estimates ($mn) 2,373 3,431 4,040 ‐112 826 1,297

Bloomberg consensus ($mn) 2,456 3,336 3,681 331 1,104 1,498

Aton vs consensus (%) ‐3.4% 2.9% 9.8% 3.1% ‐133.9% ‐25.2% ‐13.4% ‐57.5%

MMK:

Aton estimates ($mn) 1,535 2,423 2,737 270 872 1,058

Bloomberg consensus ($mn) 1,639 2,285 2,786 460 932 1,204

Aton vs consensus (%) ‐6.3% 6.0% ‐1.7% ‐0.7% ‐41.3% ‐6.4% ‐12.1% ‐19.9%

NLMK:

Aton estimates ($mn) 2,424 3,263 3,700 1,208 2,011 2,293

Bloomberg consensus ($mn) 2,400 3,149 3,720 1,287 1,823 2,233

Aton vs consensus (%) 1.0% 3.6% ‐0.5% 1.4% ‐6.2% 10.3% 2.7% 2.3%

SVST:

Aton estimates ($mn) 3,315 3,961 4,155 9 1,598 1,802


Aton vs consensus (%) 17.6% 11.9% 4.5% 11.4% ‐98.8% 4.0% ‐1.9% ‐32.3%


10

Drilling Down on the Main Sector Drivers

Economic Backdrop – Growth without the Base Effect

With the end of 2010 approaching, Russia will soon be taking stock of the achievements and setbacks of the year. A harsh winter followed by a summer with abnormally high temperatures and forest fires precluded the country’s economy from realising its full growth potential. However, active government involvement in a wide range of producing industries, aimed at saving industry from decay and stimulating growth, coupled with a low‐base effect, should allow the Russian economy to record a 5% YoY increase in GDP for the year, based on Aton’s estimates. As the country enters 2011, the main question is whether Russia will be able to sustain its positive growth dynamics. The low‐base effect will have a much lower impact going forward; however due to slower than expected growth in 2010, we should still see it making a positive difference to 2011 numbers. Nevertheless, we believe that even without the help of the low‐base factor, Russia has real potential to continue on its growth path next year driven by robust consumer spending, a gradual recovery in industrial production and a rising contribution from fixed investment. China is often viewed as a benchmark, particularly when it comes to judging the impact of its economic development on the global steel and commodities markets. Russia’s economy and its growth are very much dependent on developments in the commodity markets, so it is therefore interesting to compare and contrast the two economies from their pre‐crisis peaks to troughs and their eventual recovery. Both economies have demonstrated broadly similar behaviour in recent years. As can be seen from Figure 13, industrial production in both China and Russia suffered substantial reductions during the crisis. From the end of 2009 to the beginning of 2010, both economies managed to recover some of the lost ground, helped by the low‐base effect, as well as government stimuli and the resulting improvement in demand for industrial products. Despite continued volatility – due in some cases to a reduction in the base effect, but also to either government intervention (e.g. curbs on energy supply in China) or external factors (e.g. the extreme heat wave in Russia) – industrial production in both countries is now firmly in positive territory, oscillating around their pre‐crisis five‐year averages.

Figure 13: Industrial production – back to historical averages Figure 14: GDP growth – a large gap to close

‐20%

‐10%

0%

10%

20%

Jan‐07 Jul‐07 Jan‐08 Jul‐08 Jan‐09 Jul‐09 Jan‐10 Jul‐10

% chg yoy

China IP growth China pre‐cris i s 5Y avgRuss ia IP growth Russ ia pre‐cris i s 5Y avg

IP growth is back to

its normal averages,

both in China...

…and Russia

‐20%

‐15%

‐10%

‐5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

1Q07 3Q07 1Q08 3Q08 1Q09 3Q09 1Q10

% chg yoy

China Russ ia

Following sharp

drop in 2009...

…the Russian economy

is gradually recovering

Sources (Figures 13 and 14): Bloomberg, Rosstat

Economic growth rates in the two countries have also moved in broadly similar trends, with the collapse of 2009 turning into growth in 2010 thanks to the low‐base effect and government stimuli. However, we note that as things stand at the moment, there is still a gap that the Russian economy must cross before its growth rate differential returns to pre‐crisis levels (Figure 14).

11

Comparing industrial production with fixed investment growth, we can see that fixed investments have underperformed considerably following the crisis. The situation may be about to change as growth in fixed investment has finally overtaken the rate of growth in industrial production (Figure 15). An increase in fixed investment, in our view, would become one of the key drivers of Russian economic growth in the absence of low‐base effects and could be an element supporting our positive view on the nation’s steel sector.

Figure 15: Growth in Russian fixed investment to overtake IP Figure 16: Russian GDP to grow by 5‐6% annually in 2010‐11

‐30%

‐20%

‐10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Jan‐07 Jul‐07 Jan‐08 Jul‐08 Jan‐09 Jul‐09 Jan‐10 Jul‐10

Industria l production Fixed investment

Fixed investment saw a

sharp recovery in August

7.1%6.4%

7.4% 8.1%

5.6%

‐7.9%

4.9%6.1%

‐10%

‐8%

‐6%

‐4%

‐2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010E 2011E

Source: Rosstat Source: Rosstat, Aton Estimates

The Russian economy continues to be driven by commodity prices, so developments in China, one of the biggest commodity consumers and importers, will play a major role in our view.

Global Steel Output – Excess Capacity Still on Hold

Data from the World Steel Association shows that global monthly steel output reached its all‐time high of 125mn tonnes in May 2010 (we will use this point as a benchmark in our further analysis of steel output in terms of Historical Peak Rate Utilisation). Most of the recent jump in production was due to China, where monthly output reached an all‐time high of 56mn tonnes in May 2010. World output is currently down, with Sep 2010 production coming in at around 112mn tonnes, 90% of the high in May. The reduction was partly due to seasonal factors. However, we think that economic uncertainty and the lack of visible growth in real demand are much stronger factors that have forced steelmakers to scale down their output (Figure 17).

Figure 17: World steel output – large portion of installed capacity still unutilised

20

40

60

80

100

120

140


40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Output (mnt) % of Peak Cap. uti l i sation (%)

Peak output, not peak

capacity utilisation


12

In fact, data from the World Steel Association shows that only around 74% of global installed capacity was utilised in September (approximately 82% was utilised in the peak month of May). Based on these figures, the world’s steelmakers can currently produce up to 150‐155mn tonnes of steel per month. This means that global steel output in September was approximately 35‐40mnt short of its peak potential or, to put it another way, over 25% of the global installed capacity remained idled during that month. This notion was confirmed during our recent meeting with MMK management, when the company’s VP for Finance and Economics, Oleg Fedonin, stated that under their estimates, global excess steel capacity was currently around 360mn tonnes (i.e. 30mn tonnes per month). This excess capacity could pose a risk to the recovery of steel prices. Steelmakers may be encouraged to bring capacity back online as steel prices start to recover again (e.g. on the back of seasonal restocking). If manufacturers’ decision to bring that excess supply of steel to the market is based purely on price dynamics (as opposed to clear signs that real demand for steel has restored) the fragile supply/demand balance could be upset again, pushing steel prices down. However, it appears that steel producers learned well from the recent crisis, when they had to resort to output cuts to avoid oversupply and any sharp correction in prices. It is hard to tell whether the current level of production cuts is sufficient to limit downward pressure on prices. However, the steel price correction during the summer months may have been a signal that steel output surpassed demand. Nevertheless, steelmakers were reasonably quick to react, reducing output to limit the negative impact on prices. In the absence of tangible evidence that real demand for steel is recovering, we believe it would be difficult for steelmakers to pass on any cost inflation to their consumers. Production discipline by steelmakers would therefore remain an effective tool in protecting steel prices from a sharp downward correction in the short‐to‐medium term, thereby helping producers to preserve their margins.

US and EU Steel Output – Two Different Recovery Stories

Europe and the US are two major markets where Russian steel producers expanded aggressively prior to the financial crisis. With output in Russia climbing close to 100% of installed capacity and major capacity expansion projects still in gestation, assets in the US and EU (for Russian steelmakers who have them) may provide an additional short‐term output boost. However, as we will see below, the two markets are not equal when it comes to the recovery of steelmakers’ fortunes.

Too early to write off the US

The pace of the recovery of US steel output has been disappointing to date. Capacity utilisation has barely edged above 70% since the start of 2010, while most industry analysts forecasted this level to be exceeded in 2H09. Longer than expected inventory de‐stocking and the resulting lack of real demand for steel were the main factors behind the slow output recovery, in our view. However, despite being far from ideal, the state of the US steel industry is not as bad as it may seem. Figure 18 shows US monthly steel output peaking at around 8.7mn tonnes in May 2008 (we will refer to this as the 100% Peak Rate Utilisation). However, even at that point, US capacity utilisation was around 90%, based on data from the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), a difference of around 10% or 1mn tonnes of monthly output.

13

Figure 18: US steel output – recovery is slow but steady

76.1%

100.0%

43.5%70.8%

89.7%

33.5%

0

2

4

6

8

10

Jan 08 Jul 08 Jan 09 Jul 09 Jan 10 Jul 100%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

US Steel Output (mnt) Peak Rate Uti l i sation (%)Capaci ty Uti l i sation (%)

Source: World Steel Association, AISI

US capacity utilisation averaged around 71% during Sep 2010 (the latest figure, for the week ending 18 Oct 2010, stands at around 67% according to AISI). It is important to note that US steel output in September was already equal to around 76% of the 2008 peak, showing slow but steady progress in a positive direction. The recovery of US steel production could receive a further boost if the new infrastructure spending plan recently announced by the Obama administration is passed by the US legislature. The plan calls for $50bn of additional infrastructure spending on top of the $105bn allocated in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Among Russian steelmakers, Severstal and Evraz should benefit from higher infrastructure spending and the resulting increase in construction activity.

EU Steel output – a sharp decline in output is worrying

European steel output saw some encouraging jumps in late 2009 – early 2010, with output from the EU27 countries reaching approximately 16.5mn tonnes in May 2010, or about 86% of the pre‐crisis peak. However, recent data suggest that European steelmakers probably overestimated the pace of economic recovery in Europe and real demand for steel, which resulted in a sharp price correction. Consequently, European steel output suffered a sharp decline, falling by approximately 26% to around 12mn tonnes in August, or about 64% of the 2008 peak (Figure 19).

Figure 19: Europe disappoints with a sharp output slump during the summer

74.8%

47.5%

63.6%

86.5%

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0


40%

60%

80%

100%

EU27 Steel Output (mnt) Peak Rate Uti l i sation (%)


14

Interestingly, Italy, Greece and Spain, the countries most affected by the recent sovereign debt crisis, saw some of the sharpest drops between the May 2010 highs and August, falling 56%, 77% and 32%, respectively. During the same period steel output among two other major European producers, Germany and France, was down 15% and 45%, respectively. The austerity measures currently being implemented in these countries lead us to believe that state support for infrastructure spending, a key element in the revival of steel demand during a crisis, will be limited at best. Therefore, despite European steel output recording a healthy increase in September, we expect a long and painful recovery in the European steel sector – a situation that could potentially have a negative impact on Russian steelmakers with exposure to that market.

China – Enough Domestic Demand to Keep Pressure off Export Markets

China is always closely watched, not just as a barometer of growth for the global economy, but also as a threat to the steel market supply‐demand balance and hence the recovery of global steel prices. The country’s ability to redirect significant amounts of steel onto export markets was well demonstrated both during the peak of 2008 and the period of relative steel market strength in the first half of 2010. While we can never discount the threat of cheap Chinese steel flooding the market, with its attendant severe pressure on prices, we believe this threat is overrated at the moment for several reasons.

September production cuts – too little to upset the overall growth trend

The news of Chinese production cuts attracted significant attention in September. The cuts were aimed primarily at energy inefficient and outdated capacity, although we doubt the cuts had any major effect on overall Chinese output. In fact, we believe the reduction in output volumes in September was broadly in line with recent output trends. The World Steel Association’s numbers for September show China’s output at 48mn tonnes, down 15% from the record of 56mn tonnes in May 2010 (Figure 20).

Figure 20: Chinese steel output fell gradually in June‐Sept 2010

85.4%

61.3%

10

20

30

40

50

60


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

China Steel Output (mnt) Peak Rate Uti l i sation (%)


Although September output cuts reduced China’s monthly steel production considerably, it is still about 3% higher than the pre‐crisis peak of 46.6mn tonnes reached in June 2008. Therefore, we believe that, compared to Europe (with a 26% production fall in June – Aug 2010 as discussed above) China’s steel market remains in reasonably good shape.

15

Chinese prices are up on production cuts and remain uncompetitive internationally

In another move to limit the output of inefficient steelmakers, Chinese authorities removed tax rebates on steel exports from 15 June, which had an immediate effect on the country’s net export balance, which fell 65% between June and Aug 2010 (Figure 21).

Figure 21: Chinese steel exports still off historical highs

‐2

0

2

4

6

8

Jan‐08 Jul‐08 Jan‐09 Jul‐09 Jan‐10 Jul‐10mn tonnes

Steel product import Steel product exportNet export

The period of being net importer

of steel was short‐lived...

…although Chinese steel exports

are yet to recover to past peaks

Source: Bloomberg

The news of production cuts caused a short‐term increase in prices, both in China and abroad (Figure 22). This resulted in some buying activity on the export markets, with China’s net steel exports increasing 17% MoM in September to 1.7mn tonnes.

Figure 22: Chinese steel prices recover in Aug – Sep 2010 ($/t, FOB‐Shanghai)

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

Jan‐09

Feb‐09

Mar‐09

Apr‐09

May‐09

Jun‐09

Jul‐09

Aug‐09

Sep‐09

Oct‐09

Nov‐09

Dec‐09

Jan‐10

Feb‐10

Mar‐10

Apr‐10

May‐10

Jun‐10

Jul‐10

Aug‐10

Sep‐10

HRC ‐ Domestic (ex VAT) Rebar ‐ Domestic (ex VAT)

HRC ‐ Export Rebar ‐ Export

Source: Bloomberg

However, Steel Business Briefing (SBB) reports that following a short period of higher prices, China’s steel market started to deteriorate again on the back of weaker‐than‐expected real demand. Nevertheless, Chinese steel prices remain uncompetitive on export markets. The situation is being exacerbated by the gradual appreciation of the RMB against the dollar.

Steel price weakness obscures increased domestic demand

One of the obvious conclusions from the apparently sluggish increase in Chinese domestic steel prices through 2009‐10 could be that internal demand is lagging far behind current supply. However, we would advise against this kind of easy reasoning. In Jan‐Sept 2010, China’s steel output was close to 475mn tonnes, an increase of almost 13% from the 420mn tonnes produced in the same period of 2009. On an annualised basis, Jan‐Sept production would equal 630mn tonnes – an increase of just under 12% from the 2009 result of 570mn tonnes. Even if we assume that the September output cuts continue for the rest of the year due to a seasonally weaker

16

year end, we should still see roughly a 7‐8% YoY increase in steel output in China this year to approximately 600‐610mn tonnes, which is 20‐22% higher than in pre‐crisis 2008. Given this enormous increase in production and the fact that net steel exports from China are still far from their 2008 peaks, we would argue that most of the additional output is finding buyers in China, as we find it highly unlikely that such large volumes would merely be dumped into stockpiles. Government measures to cool down the property market and reduce output from inefficient producers would skim the excess froth from steel supply, with inefficient producers losing market share to bigger, more competitive and profitable rivals. As a final supporting point for our argument, we turn to Chinese iron ore import statistics in Figures 23 and 24 below.

Figure 23: China’s steelmakers use iron ore price dips to buy… Figure 24: …and build up their stocks “on the cheap”

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Jan‐10 Mar‐10 May‐10 Jul‐10 Sep‐10

Baltic Capesize Index

100

120

140

160

180

200

Iron Ore ‐ US$/tonne

Ba l tic Capes ize IndexSpot Iron Ore Fines CFR China ($/tonne)

Iron ore price weakness

used as buying opportunity

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jul 09 Sep 09 Nov 09 Jan 10 Mar 10 May 10 Jul 10 Sep 10

mn tonnes

China i ron ore importsIron ore s tocks at Chinese ports

Chinese iron ore imports are

up again in September...

…although some of iron ore

ends up in port stockpiles

Source: Bloomberg Source: Bloomberg

As can be seen from Figure 23, spot iron ore prices saw two periods of weakness in the past few months – July and September. At the same time, Figure 24 suggests that Chinese iron ore importers used those periods as buying opportunities, with Chinese iron ore imports in July and September jumping 9% and 18%, respectively MoM (to 51.3mn tonnes in July and 52.6mn tonnes in September). Interestingly, while iron ore stocks at Chinese ports reached record highs in July, the increase in September was sharp but limited, with stocks already on the way down as some Chinese steel producers raised or restarted production. The points we presented above suggest that excess Chinese steel capacity does not currently pose a major threat to the fragile supply/demand balance on the global steel market. The country’s economy is growing fast enough to take up at least some of the additional steel supplied by its domestic producers. At the same time, measures introduced by the country’s government and gradual currency appreciation should limit excess steel exports with only the most efficient producers able to compete on international markets.

Russia Showing Tentative Signs of Steel Market Recovery

Along with most of their global peers, Russian steelmakers were severely affected by the economic slowdown with output falling by over 50% from the May 2008 peak of 6.8mnt to the trough of 3.3mnt in Dec 2008. However, steel production recovered quite quickly throughout 2009, with output reaching 5.6mn tonnes in Oct 2009 before falling slightly in the seasonally slow winter period. Russian steel output saw more growth in 2010, but the pace of recovery slowed considerably: Sept 2010 output was only 5.6mnt, or around 82% of the pre‐crisis high (Figure 25).

17

Figure 25: Russia: Growth in capacity utilisation is flattening out

82.3%

48.6%

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0


30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Russ ia Steel Output (mnt) Peak Rate Uti l i sation (%)


By breaking output down into various steel types, the recovery can be more clearly seen in flat steel markets, while long steel output (and by association consumption) is recovering at a much slower pace.

Flat steel – a stronger driver for growth

Russia’s flat steel market was severely affected by the crisis. We use the example of the most basic flat steel product, HRC, to demonstrate the effect of the crisis on flat steel production and consumption in Russia and the current state of the market, which appears to have recovered to a reasonably healthy level of consumption. Apparent consumption of HRC in Russia suffered a massive 80% drop from the peak of 780,000 tonnes in July 2008 to 155‐160,000 tonnes in December (Figure 26). Apparent usage remained volatile in 1H09 with a sharp increase to around 525,000 tonnes by Mar 2009 and a reduction to 335,000 tonnes in June. However, in 2H09, apparent consumption averaged about 500,000 tonnes per month and then increased further in 2010, peaking at a healthy level of around 650,000 tonnes in Aug 2010, which is similar to the monthly average in pre‐crisis 1Q08.

Figure 26: Russian HRC trade and consumption (‘000 tonnes) Figure 27: Russian HRC usage shows signs of recovery

‐800

‐400

0

400

800

1200

Jan‐08 Jul‐08 Jan‐09 Jul‐09 Jan‐10 Jul‐10

Domestic output used Import Export

The apparent consumption of

HRC is gradually recovering

54.4%

75.1%

26.5%

62.4%

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Jan‐08 Jul‐08 Jan‐09 Jul‐09 Jan‐10 Jul‐1020%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Apparent consumption ('000 tonnes)Apparent consumption as % of domestic outputActual HRC Output ('000 tonnes)

Apparent HRC usage

gradually recovering

to pre‐crisis levels

Source: Metal Expert Source: Metal Expert

Rising apparent demand in itself does not reveal real demand, so we look at it as a function of the country’s total HRC output. Our argument is that the higher the demand for HRC in Russia, the greater the proportion of this steel that will go to internal use, as opposed to export sales. In 2008, apparent consumption of HRC accounted for more than 50% of all HRC produced in Russia, peaking at around 75% in July 2008. During the crisis, Russian steel producers used export markets to offload

18

excess HRC with apparent consumption accounting for just over 25% of the country’s output in Dec 2008 (see Figure 27 above). The situation improved substantially through 2009‐10, with apparent consumption accounting for over 60% of Russian HRC output. With HRC output returning to pre‐crisis levels and the proportion of HRC used internally back to healthy levels, we can conclude that real demand for flat steel in Russia has recovered, if not to pre‐crisis peaks, at least to a level where Russian HRC supply can be considered close to the balancing point with real demand. The apparent strength of the flat steel market is not surprising given its exposure to auto and machinery manufacturing and the oil and gas sectors – areas of the economy which saw considerable state involvement and support. As can be seen from Figure 28, car sales in Russia have recovered strongly from the lows of 2008‐10 on the back of the Russian government’s “cash for clunkers” scheme and market protectionism.

Figure 28: Russian auto sales – further growth expected (‘000 units, including LCVs)

‐

50

100

150

200

250

300

Aug

Oct

Dec

Feb

Apr

Jun

Aug

Oct

Dec

Feb

Apr

Jun

Aug

Oct

Dec

Feb

Apr

Jun

2008 2009 2010 2011

Reported Sales Forecast

Positive sales dynamics

in 2010 and 2011

Old car imports

bosted 2008 figures

Source: Rosstat, Aton estimates

In fact, “cash for clunkers” was so successful in supporting local car manufacturing that the Russian government has approved an extension to the scheme and is even considering extending it to cover light commercial vehicles (LCVs) and heavy trucks. We see similar developments in machinery manufacturing and oil and gas. For instance, according to the estimates of one of Russia’s leading rail transport firms, First Freight Company (a subsidiary of Russian Railways), Russian and CIS rail car makers are expected to produce up to 85,000 units in 2010 alone on the back of a modernisation drive by state‐owned Russian Railways (RZD) and the general shortage of modern rolling stock in Russia. These actions by the state should continue to support demand for flat steel in the short‐to‐medium term, despite the slow pace of recovery in other sectors of the economy, including the construction sector.

Long steel – held back by weak construction activity

The situation on the domestic long steel market presents a stark contrast to the market for flat steel mainly as a result of the continued crisis in the Russian construction industry. The effects of the crisis on the long steel market were less pronounced when compared to the flat steel market. The apparent consumption of rebar, the backbone of the long steel market and the main product used in the construction industry, fell by approximately 65% (compared to an 80% reduction in apparent HRC consumption)

19

from the peak of 665,000 tonnes in July 2008 to the trough of 240,000 tonnes in Dec 2008. However, in contrast to HRC, the recovery in apparent rebar consumption has been sluggish and prone to volatility, further exacerbated by seasonality (Figure 29).

Figure 29: Russian rebar trade and consumption (‘000 tonnes) Figure 30: Apparent demand recovery is still sluggish

‐200

0

200

400

600

800

Jan‐08 Jul‐08 Jan‐09 Jul‐09 Jan‐10 Jul‐10

Domestic output used Import Export

The recovery in apparent rebar usage

is slower and more seasonal

96.1%

98.8%

62.4%

124.3%

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Jan‐08 Jul‐08 Jan‐09 Jul‐09 Jan‐10 Jul‐1040%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

Apparent consumption ('000 tonnes)Apparent consumption as % of domestic outputActua l Rebar Output ('000 tonnes)

Apprent rebar usage has

stabilised, but at lover

levels vs pre‐crisis peaks

Source: Metal Expert Source: Metal Expert

Moreover, apparent consumption of rebar is around 99% of total production, which stood at just 470,000 tonnes in Aug 2010, 20% below the Mar 2008 peak of 590,000 tonnes. Apparent rebar consumption is significantly below the 2008 peak, when it accounted for almost 125% of domestic output, i.e. Russia had to import significant amounts of steel to satisfy domestic demand (Figure 30). The situation has changed considerably: output of long steel is now struggling to recover due to limited demand, primarily linked to the weak state of the domestic construction industry, which is still hampered by the effects of the financial crisis and in particular the lack of available credit financing. In Figure 31 we see that construction volumes (measured in useful area put into service) fell by around 7% YoY in 2009. This decline could have been sharper were it not for projects already begun in 2008. Construction activity had a slow start in 2010, with 1H10 additions amounting to just under 32mn m2, 33% of the 2009 total. However, since most residential construction is put into service in the last quarter of the year, this number may not be fully indicative of full‐year results. Nevertheless, even under a very optimistic forecast, we would only expect the total for 2010 to barely exceed the level for 2009.

Figure 31: Russian construction activity – mn m2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2000

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010E

1Q10

2Q10

3Q10E

4Q10E

Res identia l Non‐res identia lConstruction in

2010 is expected to

be below 2008 peak

Source: Rosstat, Aton estimates

20

Since access to credit remains limited for Russian property developers (and what is available comes with high interest rates), we expect construction activity to remain sluggish in the near term. State involvement in the industry is currently limited to a handful of large scale projects; apart from the Sochi Olympics and Far Eastern infrastructure development in preparation for the 2012 APEC summit, there are no major state projects set to start in the near term that could revitalise demand for long steel. One exception could involve demand for rails driven by the ongoing modernisation of Russia’s infrastructure. Nevertheless, we doubt that a surge in demand for this specialised and relatively low‐volume product would be sufficient to improve the overall picture. This situation may change in 2011, when the new construction season starts. We are already seeing an increase in the production of construction‐related products (bricks, cement, etc.) in preparation for December‐January restocking by builders and property developers. However, a recent Russian government decree, which reduced export duties on cement to zero to help producers struggling to sell their products domestically, suggests to us that a real recovery in building activity should not be expected soon. For information we give an estimate of exposure to long /construction steel for each company under our coverage in the following figure.

Figure 32: Breakdown of long steel vs other steel products by company (%)

65%

86% 92% 95%

35%

14% 8% 5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Evraz (3Q10) NLMK (3Q10) MMK (2Q10) Severstal

(2Q10)

Other s teel (inc. semi ‐finished) Long / construction s teel


21

Price Forecasts For the reasons outlined in the previous section, we believe that (barring seasonal factors) flat steel products should enjoy stronger support on the demand side. Lack of construction activity, on the other hand, will weigh down prices for long steel products and we do not expect a significant improvement until well into 2011. As a result, we expect flat steel to maintain its premium over long in the short‐to‐medium term. In terms of export markets, we see continued weakness, especially in Europe. As a result, we forecast Russian domestic steel prices will maintain their premiums over export prices. High raw material prices, in particular for coking coal and steel scrap, will likely continue to pressure margins for Russian steel producers, as it will be difficult for them to pass on the full extent of cost increases to customers while the demand picture remains uncertain.

HRC prices – gradual recovery should continue in 2011

We expect prices for HRC, along with other flat products, to continue recovering in 2011 as demand for flat products grows. We forecast 4Q10 prices will remain broadly flat at around $600/tonne on the back of price recovery in the beginning of the quarter, offset by a seasonal slowdown as winter approaches. We expect an average quarterly increase of around 5% in 1Q‐3Q11, slowing in 4Q11 (Figure 33).

Figure 33: HRC prices – gradual recovery to continue in 2011 Figure 34: Domestic HRC – premium to export prices established

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1Q 08

2Q 08

3Q 08

4Q 08

1Q 09

2Q 09

3Q 09

4Q 09

1Q 10

2Q 10

3Q 10

4Q 10E

1Q 11E

2Q 11E

3Q 11E

4Q 11E

$/m

etric tonne

Average CIS Domestic Price Average CIS Export Price

Government stimuli should ensure

flat steel enjoys steadier recovery

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

2009

2010 E

2011 E

2012 E

2013 E

2014 E

2015 E

$/m

etric tonne


Domestic flat prices are expected to

maintain premium over exports due

to better demand fundamentals

Sources (Figures 32 and 33): Metal Expert, Bloomberg, Aton estimates

We forecast that the average HRC price in 2011 will be around 10‐11% higher than in 2010 at $650‐655/tonne, with a further 2% increase expected in 2012 to $665‐670/tonne. Domestic HRC should maintain an average 4‐5% premium to the export price in the short‐to‐medium term (Figure 34), in our view.

Rebar

Rebar prices are forecast to be more volatile than HRC: we project a 5% QoQ reduction in 4Q10 prices, to $550/tonne. We may then see a 5% recovery in 1Q11 to $575‐580/tonne on the back of seasonal restocking, but we do not expect a major recovery in prices until the latter part of 2Q11, with quarterly rebar prices expected to average around $620/tonne, up 7.5% QoQ (Figure 35).

22

Figure 35: Rebar prices – short‐term weakness expected Figure 36: Domestic rebar regains its premium over export

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1Q 08

2Q 08

3Q 08

4Q 08

1Q 09

2Q 09

3Q 09

4Q 09

1Q 10

2Q 10

3Q 10

4Q 10E

1Q 11E

2Q 11E

3Q 11E

4Q 11E

$/m

etric tonne


Long steel prices are forecast to

weaken further due to seasonal

factors and low fixed investments...

...but we may see some pick‐up in activity (and prices) in 2011

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

2009

2010 E

2011 E

2012 E

2013 E

2014 E

2015 E

$/m

etric tonne


Domestic prices are expected to

regain their premium over exports

Sources: Metal Expert, Bloomberg, Aton estimates

We expect domestic rebar prices to average around $600/tonne in 2011 with a 5% increase in 2012 to $630‐635/tonne. Again, we expect Russian rebar prices to maintain a premium over export markets that averages approximately 3% going forward (Figure 36).

Flat steel should maintain premium over long products driven by stronger demand

We anticipate that flat steel prices will maintain their current premium to long steel. Our basket of flat steel products (HRC, CRC, HDG and thick plate) is forecast to trade at an average premium of around 9‐10% to the basket of long products (rebar, wire rod, merchant bar and structural steel) (Figure 37).

Figure 37: Flat steel expected to maintain its premium to long

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10

2Q10

3Q10

4Q10E

1Q11E

2Q11E

3Q11E

4Q11E

$/m

etric tonne

CIS Domestic Flat Steel BasketCIS Domestic Long Steel Basket

Flat steel price to

strengthen on the

back of growing

demand

Seasonality and lack of fixed

investments continue to have

greater effect on long steel

Source: Metal Expert, Bloomberg, Aton estimates

We do not expect long steel products to regain the premium to flat that was seen in 2008 until real demand for long products recovers sufficiently to allow producers to fully pass on their cost increases to customers. Given the state of the construction industry in Russia, we do not expect this to occur within the next couple of years.

Raw material prices maintain pressure on margins

We expect continued pressure from raw material prices on steelmakers’ margins. The pressure is expected to be especially pronounced in coking coal in 2011 (due to the recent Raspadskaya incident and a structural shortage of high‐quality, locally produced coking coal). A major increase in scrap prices can be expected from 2012 on the back of insufficient scrap generation and added demand from new EAF capacity.

23

The situation in Russia’s coking coal market provides a stark contrast to international markets, where the benchmark price for hard coking coal was negotiated down by 7% by Japanese steelmakers, although the reduction was not as deep as they had hoped. Our coking coal forecast for Russia assumes a continued increase in prices through 4Q10 and most of 2011 (Figure 38). Mechel announced during its 2Q10 results teleconference that they expect a 10% QoQ increase in Russian coking coal prices in 4Q10, with a further 10‐15% YoY increase in 2011. NLMK also confirmed recently that it had agreed to a 5‐6% increase in coking coal prices.

Figure 38: Russian coking coal prices – producers expect to secure further gains

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

4Q 08

1Q 09

2Q 09

3Q 09

4Q 09

1Q 10

2Q 10

3Q 10

4Q 10E

1Q 11E

2Q 11E

3Q 11E

4Q 11E

US$/m

etric tonne

Hard Coking Coal ‐ Internationa l BenchmarkAverage CIS Domestic Price

Despite the expected reduction in

the international benchmark price...

…Russian prices are tipped

to enjoy further gains


We forecast that Russian coking coal (type GZh) prices will rise 24% YoY in 2011 to $150‐152/tonne, with a smaller 4% increase in 2012 to $157/tonne, as we anticipate that new production will cover some of the coal shortage. Russian steelmakers, with the notable exception of MMK, are reasonably self‐sufficient in iron ore. We therefore expect Russian iron ore price dynamics to reflect global trends. Rio Tinto recently announced that it expects the global iron ore market to soften going into 2011 before picking up again from around 2Q11. Current market consensus forecasts a 7% reduction in iron ore prices in 1Q11 (Figure 39).

Figure 39: Russian iron ore prices – follow the global trends

30

50

70

90

110

130

150

1Q 08

2Q 08

3Q 08

4Q 08

1Q 09

2Q 09

3Q 09

4Q 09

1Q 10

2Q 10

3Q 10

4Q 10E

1Q 11E

2Q 11E

3Q 11E

4Q 11E

US$/m

etric tonne

Benchmark ‐ BHP Bi l l i ton Fines (Export to Japan)Average CIS Domestic Price

Global benchmark is expected to

soften before going up again...

Russian prices are not

immune to global

d


Similarly, Russian iron ore concentrate prices are expected to soften further in 4Q10‐1Q11, following a 4% QoQ reduction in 3Q10, to around $84/tonne. Our forecast for the 2011 average price is $83/tonne, just 5% higher than in 2010. We expect another 5% increase, to $88/tonne in 2012.

24

For steel scrap, we forecast an increase of around 2% YoY to $235/tonne in 2011. However, as production of long steel recovers, we may start seeing some shortages in 2012 – a view recently highlighted by MMK. We assume a 9% YoY increase in 2012 to $255/tonne. Our price assumptions for the main steel products and raw materials are summarised in Figure 40 below.

Figure 40: Aton raw material and steel price assumptions (Oct 2010) Annual prices Quarterly prices

$/metric tonne 2009 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E 3Q10 4Q10E 1Q11E 2Q11E 3Q11E 4Q11E

Domestic raw material prices, FCA:

Iron ore concentrate 43 79 83 88 85 80 76 84 83 80 84 85 84

% change period‐on‐period 81.7% 5.3% 5.4% ‐3.2% ‐5.5% ‐5.0% ‐4.0% ‐1.6% ‐3.6% 5.0% 1.5% ‐0.5%

Coking coal concentrate (GZh‐type) 62 122 152 157 156 152 150 124 135 146 157 153 151

% change period‐on‐period 95.6% 24.4% 3.7% ‐1.1% ‐2.6% ‐1.1% ‐0.9% 8.8% 8.0% 7.5% ‐2.5% ‐1.5%

Steel scrap 168 230 235 255 263 261 258 211 207 218 240 242 240

% change period‐on‐period 36.6% 2.1% 8.7% 3.2% ‐1.0% ‐1.0% ‐15% ‐1.5% 5.0% 10.0% 1.0% ‐1.0%

Domestic steel prices, Ex‐works:

HRC 436 589 653 667 655 639 630 598 601 631 663 666 650

% change period‐on‐period 35.3% 10.7% 2.3% ‐1.9% ‐2.4% ‐1.5% ‐6.7% 0.5% 5.0% 5.0% 0.5% ‐2.5%

Rebar 422 555 601 632 633 618 607 579 550 577 621 605 599

% change period‐on‐period 31.5% 8.2% 5.1% 0.2% ‐2.3% ‐1.9% ‐6.3% ‐5.0% 5.0% 7.5% ‐2.5% ‐1.0%

Export steel prices, FOB:

Slab 372 535 557 586 578 572 568 514 527 553 567 547 561

% change period‐on‐period 43.7% 4.2% 5.2% ‐1.5% ‐1.0% ‐0.8% ‐14% 2.5% 5.0% 2.5% ‐3.5% 2.5%

Billet 393 530 611 639 624 618 610 528 555 610 595 616 622

% change period‐on‐period 34.9% 15.3% 4.6% ‐2.3% ‐1.0% ‐1.2% 1.3% 5.0% 10.0% ‐2.5% 3.5% 1.0%

HRC 456 595 626 640 628 613 604 574 577 605 636 639 623

% change period‐on‐period 30.6% 5.2% 2.3% ‐1.9% ‐2.4% ‐1.5% ‐12% 0.5% 5.0% 5.0% 0.5% ‐2.5%

Rebar 439 548 583 613 614 600 589 562 534 560 602 587 581

% change period‐on‐period 24.9% 6.3% 5.1% 0.2% ‐2.3% ‐1.9% ‐3.4% ‐5.0% 5.0% 7.5% ‐2.5% ‐1.0%

Source: Metal Expert, Aton estimates

25

COMPANY PAGES

26

We initiate coverage of Evraz with a BUY rating and a target price of $35.33/GDR. Strong mining exposure supports a high degree of self‐sufficiency, while the ability to adapt semi‐finished steel output quickly to changing market conditions allows the company to take that self‐sufficiency beyond Russia’s borders.

Figure 1: Mining and vanadium businesses enhance EBITDA margins

2Q10 Revenue Breakdown

5%4%

76%

15%

Steel

Mining

Vanadium

Other

2Q10 EBITDA Breakdown

7%6%

57%

30% Steel

Mining

Vanadium

Other

Source: Company Data

Solid position in mining provides margin protection. The company’s mining division plays an important role in securing the profitability of Evraz's steel business. Evraz is almost fully self‐sufficient in iron ore (91% coverage at end‐1H10). Its self‐coverage in coal following the tragic accident at Raspadskaya fell from over 100% to 84% at end‐1H10. However, as coal output at the company's Yuzhkuzbassugols mine gears up following the opening of new production seams, we expect a return to full coverage. International footprint provides hedge against a downturn. Evraz followed a strategy of active international expansion prior to the financial crisis, building a portfolio of assets in the US, Europe, South Africa and Ukraine. While this strategy is behind the company's current credit woes, it provided greater exposure to plate and pipe making. This is an important factor behind the current solid performance of the steel division, which would have been hard‐hit due to its strong exposure to Russia’s construction market. Flexibility in production of semi‐finished products takes vertical integration beyond Russia’s borders. Evraz can easily switch between the output of slab and billet, which allows it to supply its international units with the inputs needed to produce higher value‐added products. This strategy proved itself at Vitcovice steel, when the supply of pig iron was cut off due to a commercial dispute. Evraz also supplies slabs to its American units. This approach allows it to keep higher margins in‐house instead of selling lower value‐added, semi‐finished steel on the open market. We initiate coverage of Evraz with a BUY rating and a target price of $35.33/GDR, which implies upside potential of 18% to current share price levels. The company has exposure to the attractive plate and pipe‐making markets, while the gradual restoration of construction demand in Russia should allow it to utilise its leading position as a long steel manufacturer, in our view.

EVRAZ GROUP Taking Self-Sufficiency beyond Russia’s Borders

BUY

Target price $35.33


Bloomberg code EVR LI

Reuters code HK1q.L

Price (ordinary GDR, $) 30.01

Price (pref, $) n/a

Upside potential 18%

GDR ratio (x) 1 : 3

Share data

No. of ordinary shares (mn) 146

No. of ordinary GDRs (mn) 438

No. of pref shares (mn) n/a

3M average daily t/o ($mn) 35

Free float (%) 17.4%

Market capitalisation ($mn) 13,141

Enterprise value ($mn) 20,679

Major shareholders

Lanebrook Limited 72.39%

FINANCIALS ($mn) 2009 10E 11E

Revenue 9,772 12,229 13,950

EBITDA 1,237 2,373 3,431

EBIT (1,047) 525 1,674

Net income (1,251) (112) 826

EPS (9.30) (0.77) 5.66

VALUATION

P/E (x) n/a n/a 15.9

P/CF (x) 12.3 21.4 8.8

EV/EBITDA (x) 16.7 8.7 6.0

EV/Sales (x) 2.1 1.7 1.5

P/BV (x) 1.3 1.2 1.1

RoCE (%) ‐6.9% ‐0.6% 4.6%

RoE (%) ‐12.2% ‐1.1% 7.0%

PERFORMANCE

1 month (%) 6.8%

3 month (%) 19.9%

12 month (%) ‐2.0%

52‐week high ($) 37.90

52‐week low ($) 7.50


27

Recent Financial Performance and Forward Projections 1H10 results mixed, but outlook improved

Evraz’s 1H10 results were mixed with EBITDA rising 50% vs 2H09 to $1.15bn, slightly below the Interfax consensus of $1.18bn. Moreover, EBITDA was at the lower end of earlier management guidance of $1.15‐1.25bn. The company reported a 1H10 net loss of $270mn (vs a net loss of $262mn in 2H09), which was significantly below the consensus forecast of $22mn net profit. However, the bottom line was affected by $554mn of one‐off items, including a charge of $416mn resulting from changes in accounting principles and a $138mn loss from various impairments and asset revaluations. The company’s net debt stood at $7.12bn, which was slightly higher than the 1Q10 figure of $7.16bn, mainly due to less cash. Encouragingly, the share of long‐term debt rose to 78% from 66% at the end of 1Q10, reflecting an improved debt maturity picture. The net debt/12M EBITDA ratio stood at 3.74x at end‐1H10 vs 5.84x at YE09. The results show that although business conditions are improving, the company still faces serious challenges in 2H10, mainly in its steel division, where EBITDA margins remain depressed (12.7% in 1H10 vs 9.1% in 1H09). However, the company’s outlook has improved considerably since publication of the 1H10 results. Management increased its 3Q10 EBITDA guidance from $480‐550mn to $550‐600mn, linked to shorter scheduled downtime than it expected, which we believe resulted in lower output losses.

Improved output ups our 2010E EBITDA forecast to $2.4bn

We have used the latest 3Q10 EBITDA guidance to fine tune our FY10 forecast for Evraz. We now expect a recovery in output volumes in 4Q10, a limited reduction in steel prices and a relatively benign cost environment during the quarter, which should allow Evraz to generate around $2.3‐2.4bn in EBITDA in FY10E. Our EBITDA forecasts for 2011E and 2012E stand at $3.4bn and $4bn, respectively, which is 3% and 10% above current Bloomberg consensus (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Evraz ‐ Aton estimates vs consensus EBITDA Net income

Year‐end: Dec 2010E 2011E 2012E 3Y average

2010E 2011E 2012E 3Y average

Aton estimates ($mn) 2,373 3,431 4,040 ‐112 826 1,297


Aton vs consensus (%) ‐3.4% 2.9% 9.8% 3.1% ‐133.9% ‐25.2% ‐13.4% ‐57.5%


We expect negative net income in 2010 as the company must still meet interest payments; we assume higher DD&A charges due to changes in accounting principles. However, we expect net income to turn positive from 2011E, reaching $826mn and improving further to $1.3bn in 2012E. We note that our forecasts are 25% and 13% respectively below consensus due to higher DD&A and interest charge assumptions and a more conservative view on Russia’s construction market.

We initiate coverage with a BUY rating and a target price of $35.33/GDR, implying 18% upside potential to the current price. We like the company’s exposure to the high‐value plate and pipe markets while an upside surprise in construction activity in Russia could lead to further improvements in profitability.

28

Valuation

Evraz – Valuation breakdown DCF calculation ($mn): 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E

EBIT 525 1,674 2,212 2,251 2,042 1,903

Less taxation (131) (418) (553) (563) (510) (476)

Tax adj. EBIT 394 1,255 1,659 1,688 1,531 1,428

Depreciation 1,709 1,758 1,828 1,852 1,852 1,852

Less capex (950) (1,100) (1,250) (1,000) (750) (750)

Change in working capital (537) (413) (189) (126) 8 20

Free cash flow 615 1,500 2,048 2,414 2,642 2,549

Terminal value 33,666

NPV of free cash flow 112 1,401 1,729 1,844 1,825 1,593

NPV of terminal value 21,036

Discounted cash flow valuation: ($mn) (%) WACC calculation: %

NPV of free cash flow 8,504 28.8% Risk free rate 4.5%

NPV of terminal value 21,036 71.2% Standard equity risk premium 4.0%

Enterprise value 29,540 100.0% Country specific equity premium 3.7%

Plus: other assets ‐ Liquidity risk premium 0.5%

Less: minorities 319 Other company‐specific risk premiums 1.0%

Less: net debt 7,219 Total cost of equity 13.7%

Equity value 22,002 Current cost of debt 9.0%

Less: preferred stock value ‐ Effective corporate tax rate 25.0%

Common equity value 22,002 Cost of debt after tax 6.8%

No. ordinary shares (mn) 146 Target gearing (debt / equity) 45.0%

Value per common share 150.75 WACC 10.6%

Common shares : GDR ratio 0.3

Value per GDR 50.25 Terminal growth rate 3.0%

Multiples based valuation:

Ratios: Multiple Value ($mn) $/GDR

10 x Earnings 8,262 18.87

5 x EBITDA 9,618 21.96

Weighted average valuation:

Valuation Weightings Net valuation

$/GDR % $/GDR

DCF 50.25 50% 25.12

P/E 18.87 25% 4.72

EV/EBITDA 21.96 25% 5.49

Value per share ($/GDR) 100% 35.33

Potential upside (%) 17.7%

Source: Aton estimates

29

Financial Accounts

Evraz – IFRS net income statement ($mn) 2008 2009 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E

Revenue 20,380 9,772 12,229 13,950 14,848 14,997 14,767 14,588

Cost of revenue and other operating costs (ex DD&A) (13,944) (8,399) (9,781) (10,469) (10,758) (10,844) (10,823) (10,783)

Unallocated expenses (221) (136) (75) (50) (50) (50) (50) (50)

EBITDA 6,215 1,237 2,373 3,431 4,040 4,103 3,894 3,755

EBITDA margin 30.5% 12.7% 19.4% 24.6% 27.2% 27.4% 26.4% 25.7%

DD&A (1,195) (1,632) (1,709) (1,758) (1,828) (1,852) (1,852) (1,852)

Other income / (expenses) (1,388) (652) (139) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

EBIT 3,632 (1,047) 525 1,674 2,212 2,251 2,042 1,903

Net financial expenses (598) (637) (659) (577) (465) (347) (222) (92)

Other pre‐tax income / (expenses) 17 84 45 45 45 45 45 45

Profit before tax 3,051 (1,600) (89) 1,142 1,792 1,950 1,865 1,857

Income tax expense (1,192) 339 (27) (285) (448) (487) (466) (464)

Profit after tax 1,859 (1,261) (116) 856 1,344 1,462 1,399 1,392

Minority interests (62) 10 4 (30) (47) (51) (49) (49)

Profit attributable to equity holders of the company 1,797 (1,251) (112) 826 1,297 1,411 1,350 1,344

Net margin 8.8% ‐12.8% ‐0.9% 5.9% 8.7% 9.4% 9.1% 9.2%

Earnings per share:

Basic EPS per ordinary share 14.6 (9.3) (0.8) 5.7 8.9 9.7 9.2 9.2

No. of ordinary shares 123 134 146 146 146 146 146 146

No. of GDRs (1 GDR = 1/3 ordinary share) 370 403 438 438 438 438 438 438


Evraz – IFRS balance sheet ($mn) 2008 2009 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E

Cash and cash equivalents 930 675 411 766 1,712 2,877 4,210 5,434

Inventories 2,416 1,886 2,186 2,412 2,431 2,358 2,377 2,372

Receivables 2,349 1,559 1,994 2,233 2,317 2,362 2,340 2,318

Other current assets 589 120 76 76 76 76 76 76

Total current assets 6,284 4,240 4,667 5,486 6,536 7,673 9,003 10,199

Property, plant and equipment 9,012 14,941 14,182 13,525 12,947 12,095 10,993 9,891

Intangible assets 1,108 1,098 1,016 1,016 1,016 1,016 1,016 1,016

Goodwill 2,167 2,211 2,165 2,165 2,165 2,165 2,165 2,165

Other non‐current assets 873 921 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025

Total non‐current assets 13,160 19,171 18,388 17,731 17,153 16,301 15,199 14,097

Assets classified for sale 7 13 113 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Total assets 19,451 23,424 23,168 23,217 23,689 23,974 24,201 24,296

Payables 2,538 1,694 1,879 1,930 1,845 1,690 1,695 1,688

Short‐term loans and lease liabilities 3,937 2,009 1,758 1,658 1,508 1,358 1,208 1,058

Provisions 63 35 38 38 38 38 38 38

Total current liabilities 6,538 3,738 3,675 3,626 3,391 3,086 2,941 2,784

Long‐term loans 6,064 5,931 5,431 4,281 3,431 2,581 1,731 881

Other long‐term liabilities 9,928 12,223 11,689 10,539 9,689 8,839 7,989 7,139

Liabilities associated with assets classified for sales ‐ 1 48 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Total non‐current liabilities 15,992 18,155 17,168 14,820 13,120 11,420 9,720 8,020

Shareholders' equity 4,672 10,284 10,565 11,860 13,418 14,858 16,080 17,182

Minority interests 245 324 320 320 320 320 320 320

Total equity 4,917 10,608 10,885 12,180 13,738 15,178 16,400 17,502

Total equity and liabilities 19,451 23,424 23,168 23,217 23,689 23,974 24,201 24,296


30

Evraz – IFRS cash flow statement 2008 2009 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E

Net income 1,859 (1,261) (116) 856 1,344 1,462 1,399 1,392

Adjustments:

Depreciation, depletion and amortisation 1,195 1,632 1,709 1,758 1,828 1,852 1,852 1,852

Other non‐cash adjustments 1,672 675 277 532 420 302 177 47

Operating profit before changes in working capital 4,726 1,046 1,870 3,146 3,592 3,616 3,427 3,291

Changes in working capital (163) 654 (501) (413) (189) (126) 8 20

Net Cash provided by operating activities 4,563 1,700 1,369 2,733 3,403 3,489 3,436 3,311

Cash flow from investing activities:

Purchases of property, plant and equipment (1,103) (441) (950) (1,100) (1,250) (1,000) (750) (750)

Other investing activities (2,633) 624 12 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Net cash used for investing activities (3,736) 183 (938) (1,100) (1,250) (1,000) (750) (750)

Cash flow from financing activities:

Proceeds from issuance of share capital, net of transaction costs (1) 310 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Proceeds from bank loans and promissory notes 5,657 3,427 1,750 750 250 250 250 250

Repayment of bank loans and promissory notes, including interest (3,949) (4,987) (2,500) (2,000) (1,250) (1,250) (1,250) (1,250)

Dividends paid by the parent entity to its shareholders (1,276) (90) ‐ (28) (207) (324) (353) (337)

Other financing activities (558) (809) 110 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Net cash provided by financing activities (127) (2,149) (640) (1,278) (1,207) (1,324) (1,353) (1,337)

Effects of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents (97) 11 (55) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of the period 327 930 675 411 766 1,712 2,877 4,210

Net Increase in cash and cash equivalents 603 (255) (264) 355 946 1,165 1,333 1,224

Cash of disposal groups classified as held for sale ‐ ‐ (21) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the period 930 675 411 766 1,712 2,877 4,210 5,434


31

We initiate coverage of Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works (MMK) with a BUY rating and a target price of $15.33/GDR. The company is focused on raising its share of the premium domestic steel market and enhancing margins via downstream expansion into value‐added products.

Figure 1: High value‐added product output focused on domestic market

12%

12%

55%21%

Domestic Sa les Structure (1H10)

Hot rolled

steel and

plateDownstream

Products

Long steel

Cold rolled steel

1%

13%

74%

12%

Export Sales Structure (1H10)

Hot rolled steel

Cold rolled steel

Slabs and Billets Others


Core strategy: supplying the Russian market with high value‐added products. MMK is committed to expanding its offering of high value‐added (HVA) products in the Russian market. The company has successfully completed construction of Mill 5000 to produce thick plate aimed at satisfying growing demand from Russian pipe‐making, shipbuilding and infrastructure construction industries. The company is now focused on Mill 2000, targeting expected demand growth for high‐strength steel from Russia’s developing automobile industry. MMK plans to increase the share of HVA products in its product mix from 35% currently to 50% by 2014.

More production upside is available. MMK’s production facilities are currently operating at around 80% capacity. This is not due to any lack of demand, but the result of a conscious decision to generate maximum value from each marginal tonne of steel produced, while keeping costs at bay. The company can easily add around 3mn tonnes of output from existing facilities. Another 2.3mn tonnes of steel will be produced at MMK’s JV with Atakash, while the expansion of iron making and oxygen converter facilities could add another 2‐2.5mn tonnes of steel output. MMK expects its steelmaking capacity to grow by 60‐65% in the period to 2014. Increasing self‐sufficiency in raw materials. MMK’s self‐sufficiency in raw material improved considerably following the acquisition of Belon, which satisfies around 35‐50% of its coal requirements. This is expected to increase to 80% by 2013 as coal output grows. In iron ore, the company is currently 30% self‐sufficient, but has options to develop the Prioskol deposit, which could improve its self‐coverage rate. We initiate coverage of MMK with a BUY rating and a target price of $15.33/GDR, implying 22% upside potential to the current share price. MMK has successfully modernised its production facilities and plans to continue expansion of its HVA product offering.

MAGNITOGORSK IRON & STEEL Focused on Domestic Value Creation

BUY

Target price $15.33



Revenue 5,081 7,741 9,661

EBITDA 1,023 1,535 2,423

EBIT 288 699 1,452

Net income 232 270 872

EPS 0.02 0.02 0.08

VALUATION

P/E (x) 46.3 39.8 12.3

P/CF (x) ‐14.8 15.4 7.4

EV/EBITDA (x) 13.5 9.0 5.7

EV/Sales (x) 2.7 1.8 1.4

P/BV (x) 1.1 1.1 1.0

RoCE (%) 1.9% 2.0% 6.4%

RoE (%) 2.3% 2.7% 8.2%

PERFORMANCE

1 month (%) 3.6%

3 month (%) 32.3%

12 month (%) 19.0%

52‐week high ($) 14.31

52‐week low ($) 2.32


Bloomberg code MMK LI

Reuters code MAGNq.L

Price (ordinary GDR, $) 12.52

Price (pref, $) n/a


GDR ratio (x) 13 : 1

Share data

No. of ordinary shares (mn) 11,174

No. of ordinary GDRs (mn) 860

No. of pref shares (mn) n/a

3M average daily t/o ($mn) 9

Free float (%) 13.4%

Market capitalisation ($mn) 10,762


Major shareholders

Mintha Holding Limited 45.62%

Fulnek Enterprises Limited 41.01%

32

Strategy Firmly Focused on the Domestic Market MMK currently generates around 65% of its sales on the domestic market and plans to raise the share of HVA in its product mix from 35% currently to 50% by 2014. The company benefits from reasonably strong domestic steel prices, which continue to show a premium to export prices (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Russian flat steel maintains premium over export markets

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

2009

2010 E

2011 E

2012 E

2013 E

2014 E

2015 E

$/m

etric tonne


Domestic flat prices are expected to

maintain premium over exports due

to better demand fundamentals


Figure 1 shows that the company sells the majority of its HVA products in the domestic market, while export sales are limited primarily to upstream products. In the domestic market, pipe manufacturing, machine and automobile building and construction remain the main consumers of MMK products. Spot sales are deliberately limited to around 24% (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Domestic market accounts for 65% of MMK’s sales

11%

10%

64%

15%

Regiona l Sales Structure (1H10)

Domestic market

Middle East

Europe

Other

11%6%

12%

14%

33%

24%

Domestic Sa les by Sector (1H10)

Pipe

production

Spot sales ‐

Russia & CIS Machine

building

Construction

Auto

industry

Other


Overseas expansion based on organic growth

When its Russian peers were vigorously expanding internationally by buying assets in the US and Europe, MMK adopted an organic growth strategy, entering into a JV with Turkey’s Atakash to build a full‐cycle steel production facility there aimed at satisfying growing Turkish and Middle Eastern demand for steel. The project is nearing completion with hot steelmaking expected to start in 2011. However, given the high cost of production, the success of the project will depend on the pace of regional economic development.

33

2Q10 results reveal no surprises – outlook in line with company strategy

MMK’s 2Q10 IFRS results revealed no surprises as the financials were in line with expectations. Its 2Q10, EBITDA reached $437mn, only slightly below the Interfax consensus of $441mn and 17% higher than 1Q10 EBITDA of $374mn. Despite increased pressure from raw material costs, MMK maintained solid EBITDA, which declined only slightly from 22.6% in 1Q10 to 21.1% in 2Q10. Net profit came in below expectations in 2Q10 at $53mn. However, the figure was affected by one‐off charges (mainly related to foreign currency losses and allowances for doubtful accounts receivable). Excluding the one‐offs, net profit was $122mn, only slightly lower than consensus expectations of $125mn and up from $94mn in 1Q10. MMK still has one of the lowest debt levels among Russian steelmakers. Total debt at end‐2Q10 stood just below $2.9bn (vs $2.1bn at YE09), with the share of long‐term debt increasing to 68%, up from 61% at YE09. MMK currently holds around $950mn in cash. Management’s outlook for 3Q and 4Q10 was a bit disappointing: the company expects output levels in the final two quarters of 2010 to be broadly in line with 2Q10. However, it believes this is in line with the company’s chosen strategy of generating maximum returns from each tonne of steel produced and capping production at a level that does not lead to unnecessary cost pressures. Moreover, management expects cost setting to remain relatively benign in 2H10, which should help the company maintain its margins at a reasonably high level, in our view.

Our 2011E EBITDA forecasts are ahead of consensus due to our positive view on MMK’s growth prospects

Our financial forecasts for MMK reflect our positive view on its growth potential and ability to maintain high margins by increasing the proportion of HVA products in its sales mix. We expect 2010 EBITDA to be around $1.5bn, or approximately 6% below the current Bloomberg consensus. However, our 2011E forecast of $2.4bn is 6% higher than consensus, while 2012E EBITDA estimate of $2.7bn is only 2% below the current consensus (Figure 4).

Figure 4: MMK ‐ Aton estimates vs consensus EBITDA Net income


2010E 2011E 2012E 3Y average

Aton estimates ($mn) 1,535 2,423 2,737 270 872 1,058

Bloomberg consensus ($mn) 1,639 2,285 2,786 460 932 1,204

Aton vs consensus (%) ‐6.3% 6.0% ‐1.7% ‐0.7% ‐41.3% ‐6.4% ‐12.1% ‐19.9%


Our forecast for 2010E net income of $270mn is 41% below consensus, reflecting our expectations of higher DD&A and interest charges. However, we are only 6% below consensus for 2011E at around $870mn and 12% below consensus in 2012 with a net income estimate of $1.1bn.

We initiate coverage of MMK with a BUY rating and a target price of $15.33/GDR, implying 22% upside potential to the current price. Our valuation reflects our belief that MMK should benefit from its growing exposure to Russia’s HVA market, while increased self‐sufficiency in raw materials should help the company maintain healthy margins.

34

Valuation

MMK – valuation breakdown DCF calculation ($mn): 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E

EBIT, $mn 699 1,452 1,700 1,687 1,543 1,437

Less taxation (175) (363) (425) (422) (386) (359)

Tax adj. EBIT 524 1,089 1,275 1,266 1,157 1,078

Depreciation 836 972 1,037 1,046 1,055 1,064

Less capex (2,118) (1,000) (950) (850) (650) (500)

Change in working capital (292) (575) (268) (18) 48 28

Free cash flow (1,049) 485 1,094 1,443 1,609 1,669


NPV of free cash flow (191) 456 936 1,124 1,142 1,079


Discounted сash flow valuation: $(mn) % WACC calculation: %










No. ordinary shares (mn) 11,174 Target gearing (debt / equity) 35.0%


Common shares : GDR ratio 13




10 x Earnings 8,717 10.14

5 x EBITDA 9,077 10.55



$/GDR % $/GDR

DCF 20.31 50% 10.15

P/E 10.14 25% 2.53

EV/EBITDA 10.55 25% 2.64



Source: Aton estimates

35

Financial Accounts

MMK ‐ IFRS net income statement ($mn) 2008 2009 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E

Gross revenue 10,550 5,081 7,741 9,661 11,045 11,061 10,793 10,627

Cost of goods sold (6,890) (3,205) (4,929) (5,644) (6,486) (6,503) (6,415) (6,373)

Selling, distribution and administrative expenses (1,163) (802) (1,122) (1,497) (1,712) (1,715) (1,673) (1,647)

Other operating expenses / (income) (378) (51) (155) (97) (110) (111) (108) (106)

EBITDA (reported) 2,204 1,285 1,627 2,448 2,762 2,758 2,622 2,525

EBITDA (adjusted) 2,119 1,023 1,535 2,423 2,737 2,733 2,597 2,500

EBITDA (adjusted) margin 20.1% 20.1% 19.8% 25.1% 24.8% 24.7% 24.1% 23.5%

EBIT 1,174 288 699 1,452 1,700 1,687 1,543 1,437

Net foreign exchange gain / (loss) 16 9 (15) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other non‐operating income / (loss) 1 180 12 25 25 25 25 25

Net interest expense (18) (76) (136) (163) (160) (132) (86) (31)

Other income / (expenses), net (67) (144) (190) (140) (140) (140) (140) (140)

Income before tax and minority interest 1,106 257 370 1,174 1,425 1,440 1,342 1,291

Income tax (25) (38) (97) (293) (356) (360) (335) (323)

Income before minority interest 1,081 219 273 880 1,069 1,080 1,006 968

Minority interest (6) 13 (3) (9) (11) (11) (10) (10)

Net income 1,075 232 270 872 1,058 1,069 996 958

Net margin 10.2% 4.6% 3.5% 9.0% 9.6% 9.7% 9.2% 9.0%

Earnings per share:

Basic EPS per ordinary share 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09

No. of ordinary shares outstanding 11,160 11,099 11,116 11,116 11,116 11,116 11,116 11,116

No. of GDRs (1 GDR = 13 ordinary shares) 858 854 855 855 855 855 855 855


MMK ‐ IFRS balance sheet ($mn) 2008 2009 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E

Cash and cash equivalents 1,106 165 237 5 354 1,111 2,046 3,042

Other investments 138 221 202 202 202 202 202 202

Accounts receivables 980 941 1,272 1,588 1,660 1,591 1,552 1,529

Inventories 996 856 1,080 1,160 1,240 1,203 1,186 1,179

Other current assets 408 247 203 162 147 143 141 140


Plant, property and equipment 9,751 11,276 12,213 12,241 12,154 11,959 11,554 10,991

Intangible assets 36 37 34 34 34 34 34 34

Goodwill 45 309 299 299 299 299 299 299

Investments in affiliates 228 22 25 25 25 25 25 25

Other investments 358 627 562 562 562 562 562 562

Other non‐current assets 151 132 154 154 154 154 154 154


Total assets 14,197 14,833 16,280 16,432 16,832 17,281 17,754 18,155

Short‐term loans and lease liabilities 1,295 828 972 872 797 747 697 647

Accounts and notes payable 1,321 928 1,148 928 797 668 659 655

Other current liabilities 24 21 23 23 23 23 23 23


Long term debt and capital leases 431 1,290 2,378 2,178 2,028 1,928 1,828 1,728

Other non‐current liabilities 1,274 1,441 1,403 1,403 1,403 1,403 1,403 1,403


Total liabilities 4,345 4,508 5,924 5,404 5,048 4,769 4,610 4,456


Total shareholders' equity 9,664 9,957 9,952 10,623 11,378 12,107 12,739 13,294

Total liabilities and shareholders' equity 14,198 14,833 16,280 16,432 16,832 17,281 17,754 18,155


36

MMK ‐ IFRS cash flow statement ($mn) 2008 2009 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E

Operating activities:

Net income 1,075 232 270 872 1,058 1,069 996 958

Adjustments for non‐cash items:

Depreciation and amortisation 945 735 836 972 1,037 1,046 1,055 1,064

Income tax 25 38 97 293 356 360 335 323

Net finance cost 18 76 136 163 160 132 86 31

Other adjustments for non‐cash items 715 (115) 162 24 1 (10) (13) (14)

Operating profit before changes in working capital 2,778 966 1,501 2,323 2,612 2,598 2,459 2,361

Changes in working capital (269) (127) (269) (575) (268) (18) 48 28

Cash generated from operations 2,509 839 1,232 1,749 2,345 2,579 2,507 2,389

Interest paid (104) (109) (110) (169) (175) (160) (150) (142)

Income tax refund / (paid) (480) 135 (91) (253) (341) (356) (333) (322)

Net cash generated by operating activities 1,925 865 1,031 1,326 1,829 2,064 2,024 1,926

Investing activities:

Acquisition of property, plant and equipment (2,112) (1,613) (2,118) (1,000) (950) (850) (650) (500)

Other investing activities 1,133 (76) 10 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Net cash used for investing activities (979) (1,689) (2,108) (1,000) (950) (850) (650) (500)

Financing activities:

Proceeds from borrowings 3,974 2,935 2,500 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Repayment of borrowings (3,562) (2,974) (1,250) (300) (225) (150) (150) (150)

Dividends paid (314) (16) (54) (218) (265) (267) (249) (240)

Other financing activities (36) 15 3 (40) (40) (40) (40) (40)

Net cash provided by financing activities 62 (40) 1,199 (558) (530) (457) (439) (430)

Effects of exchange rate changes in cash and cash equivalents (158) (77) (50) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of the period 256 1,106 165 237 5 354 1,111 2,046

Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 850 (941) 72 (232) 349 756 935 996

Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the period 1,106 165 237 5 354 1,111 2,046 3,042


37

We initiate coverage of Novolipetsk Steel (NLMK) with a HOLD rating and a 12‐month target price of $35.55/GDR, implying 1% upside potential. NLMK is a quality asset with a healthy balance sheet and the highest profitability among Russian steel names (24% EBITDA margin vs the 18% industry average).

Figure 1: Significant HVA capacity expansion expected by 2012E

5,300

400 900 5001900

400

1500

200 30070

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

HRC

Pre‐

painted

Galvanized

Plates

HVA longs

Exi s ting New


HVA player with a high degree of vertical integration. By 2012 NLMK plans to raise its crude steel capacity by almost 5mntpa to 17.4mntpa. Along with midstream capacity expansion, NLMK will raise its downstream HVA capacity, including galvanized, pre‐painted, transformer and dynamo steels. Construction of a mini‐mill in Kaluga with an annual capacity of 1.5mtpa should raise total long steel capacity to 3.6mntpa. Development of mining assets to raise vertical integration. In‐house coke, iron ore and scrap collection assets make NLMK nearly 100% self‐sufficient in major raw materials. Development of the Zhernovskoye‐1 coking coal deposit with an estimated 3.4mntpa production should cover 50% of NLMK’s annual coking coal requirements. M&A strategy proved correct during the crisis. NLMK's balanced international expansion policy of acquiring mainly rolling assets (Dan Steel, JV with Duferco, Beta Steel) proved sound during the crisis; in contrast to Severstal’s US crude steel assets, it was easier to scale down production when faced by weak demand with no significant impairment of overall profitability. Balanced debt portfolio. NLMK is moderately leveraged compared to Severstal, Evraz and Mechel. We expect a YE10 net debt/EBITDA ratio of 0.6x, a more than comfortable level that implies plenty of room for further growth and the ability to finance the second stage of the company’s modernisation programme. Initiating with a HOLD rating, suggest adding the stock on price weakness. NLMK’s stock enjoyed a strong performance, gaining 17% in the past three months. As a result, our target price of $35.55 implies just 1% upside from the current level, prompting a HOLD rating. Nevertheless, we believe in the quality of the stock and recommend adding it at times of price weakness.

NOVOLIPETSK STEEL Strong Growth with High Exposure to HVA Products

HOLD

Target price $35.55

Potential upside 1%

Bloomberg code NLMK LI

Reuters code NLMKq.L

Price (ordinary, $) 35.10

Price (pref, $) n/a

Upside potential 1%

GDR ratio (x) 10 : 1

Share data

No. of ordinary shares (mn) 5,993 No. of ordinary GDRs (mn) 599 No. of pref shares (mn) n/a 3M average daily t/o ($mn) 15 Free float (%) 12.9% Market capitalisation ($mn) 21,036


Major shareholders

Fletcher Group Holdings 85.5%


Revenue 6,140 8,167 10,074

EBITDA 1,370 2,424 3,263

EBIT 892 1,912 2,661

Net income 215 1,208 2,011

EPS 0.36 2.02 3.36

VALUATION

P/E (x) 97.7 17.4 10.4

P/CF (x) 23.5 ‐151.3 36.5

EV/EBITDA (x) 15.8 9.2 6.9

EV/Sales (x) 3.5 2.7 2.2

P/BV (x) 2.4 2.2 1.9

RoCE (%) 1.9% 9.8% 14.9%

RoE (%) 2.5% 12.6% 18.2%

PERFORMANCE

1 month (%) 5.6%

3 month (%) 17.2%

12 month (%) 19.0%

52‐week high ($) 35.75

52‐week low ($) 8.96


38

Investment Case We initiate coverage of Novolipetsk Steel (NLMK) with a HOLD rating and a 12‐month price target of $35.55 per GDR. We view NLMK as an interesting investment idea for mid‐term and long‐term investors who want a quality asset with a strong product mix of high value‐added products, solid balance sheet and balanced development strategy. Our HOLD rating is based purely the stocks recent share price performance, which we believe already prices in most of the short‐term upside potential. Despite our HOLD rating, we recommend that mid‐ and long‐term investors use any serious stock price weaknesses as a buying opportunity, as we believe NLMK will remain the best performer among Russian steel names going forward. NLMK enjoys a high level of vertical integration and an advantageous geographical location close to Russia's major sea ports, which help make it the undisputed leader among Russian steel names in terms of profitability.

Capacity expansion and upgrades key to future outperformance.

Over the next two years, NLMK plans to raise its crude steel capacity by almost 5mntpa from the current level of 12.4mntpa. This will be accomplished along with downstream capacity expansion to support production of high value‐added products such as galvanized and pre‐painted steel, dynamo and transformer steels, as well as long steel. Around 3mntpa of additional rolling and processing capacity should be added by 2012 based on company plans (Figure 2).

Figure 2: NLMK crude steel capacity expansion by 2012 (mntpa)

12,400

1,550

3,400

12,400

8,200 9,100

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

2000 2006 2010E 2012E

Current EAF BF No.7


By the beginning of 2012 more than 90% of NLMK’s blast furnace pig iron production facilities should be equipped with a pulverized coal injection (PCI) technology, according to company plans. This should reduce its coke and gas consumption by 20% and 70%, respectively.

Vertical integration is a key competitive advantage

NLMK continues to foster its vertical integration by developing existing resources and adding additional raw material capacity. Stoilensky GOK, the company’s in‐house iron ore producer, plans to raise production capacity by 2mnpta to 14.5mntpa by 2011 to ensure 100% self‐sufficiency in low‐cost iron ore. The group is also considering the construction of a palletising plant with a capacity of 6mntpa.

A quality company with strong profitability drivers

Based on the quality of its main production assets, its balance sheet, geographic location and vertical integration, business strategy and profitability, we view NLMK as one of the leading steel companies in the Russian steel universe. Those qualities

39

ensure continued outperformance in terms of profitability and valuations when compared to its international peers. As a result NLMK now trades at 26% and 9% premiums to its international peers based on EV/EBITDA (2011E) and P/E (2011E).

Figure 3: NLMK has clear lead in terms of EBITDA margins (%, 2011E)

19% 21% 21%

27%

13%16%

32%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

NLM

K

Severstal

Evraz

MMK

Mechel

Average

international

DM

Average

international

EM

Source: Peers – Bloomberg consensus estimates, NLMK – Aton estimates

We see opportunity for higher dividends when capex programme is completed.

The large‐scale investment programme aimed at raising the group’s production capacity is putting some pressure on free cash flows at the moment. As soon as the investment programme is completed (2010‐11), NLMK’s free cash flow generation ability should improve significantly, which could give the company an opportunity to increase its dividend payouts, in our view (payout is currently set at 30%).

Figure 4: Dividend policies of Russian steel companies Figure 5: NLMK’s cash flows – free cash from positive from 2011E

42.0%37.7%

31.4%32.5%

20.7% 15.9%

60.3%66.1%

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

NLM

K

MMK

SVST

EVR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Amount ($mn) 2007 Amount ($mn) 2008

Pay out ratio (%) 2007 Pay out ratio (%) 2008

Most balanced

dividend policies

‐500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010E

2011E

2012E

2013E

2014E

Capi ta l expenditures ($mn) Free cash flow ($mn)

Sources (Figures 4 and 5): Company data, Aton estimates

Historical data show that NLMK’s dividend policy is more balanced than other Russian steel names with a minimum payout ratio of 20% and a target ratio of 30%. Companies like Evraz and Severstal, which paid generous dividends before the crisis (and pursued aggressive expansionary policies abroad) have ended up with substantial debt burdens on their balance sheets and we do not expect these companies to pay any significant dividends in the short term.

Moderate leverage leaves room for possible value‐accretive acquisitions.

NLMK entered the crisis with an extremely healthy balance sheet which allowed it to remain the most profitable Russian steel company despite the slump in steel demand and sharp fall in prices. NLMK's balanced international expansion policy based on acquiring primarily rolling capacity (Dan Steel, JV with Duferco and Beta Steel) proved reasonable during the crisis. In contrast to Severstal’s crude steel producing assets in the US, NLMK was able

40

to scale down its output during the periods of weak demand without any significant damage to profitability.

Figure 6: NLMK debt breakdown ($mn) Figure 7: Debt repayment schedule ($mn)

1,828

539

LT debt ST debt

250380 380 300

500

320

100

50

20

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

2010E

2011E

2012E

2013E

Pre‐export financing Bonds Other

Source: Company data Source: Company data

At 30 June 2010, NLMK’s total debt amounted to $2.37bn, $500mn of which was short term. Balanced by $1.4bn in cash and short‐term investments, the company had a net debt position of $948mn. With our forecast EBITDA (2010) of $2.4bn, the net debt/EBITDA ratio should reach 0.6x, a comfortable level that could support either acquisitions or modernisation programmes.

1H10 results and 2H10 expectations: NLMK remains a leader in profitability

In 1Q10 the seasonal decline in demand on the domestic and several international markets had a negative impact on sales structure and average prices. The first quarter of 2010 was marked by a large‐scale reorientation of sales towards the most favourable markets, allowing NLMK to partially offset the impact of seasonal factors. For instance, product sales to developed markets increased significantly. Deliveries to the EU increased 34% QoQ to 30% of total sales. The share of North American sales increased by almost 2.5 times to 8%, mostly driven by increased sales by Beta Steel. As a result, 1Q10 sales amounted to 2.8 mn tonnes, flat QoQ and rising by 19% YoY. Improved demand for steel driven by trader restocking, as well as greater purchases by end‐consumers fostered a seasonal pick‐up in prices and sales in 2Q10. On the back of flat QoQ production costs, NLMK’s EBITDA jumped to 35%.

Figure 8: NLMK’s QoQ financial performance

23%

35%

30%28%29%

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

1Q10 2Q10 3Q10E 4Q10E 2010E

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Revenue ($mn) EBITDA ($mn)EBITDA margin (%)


By the end of 2Q, the market witnessed an upward trend in supply that was not supported by adequate demand growth. As a result, prices fell from the May‐April peak of $700 per tonne of HRC to $580/tonne in the second half of August. We expect

41

steel prices to continue to fluctuate in the second half of the year. The upward price trend that emerged at the end of 3Q10 will likely be restrained by still‐significant excess capacity and relatively low utilisation rates in the global steel sector. All in all, we expect to see the company’s EBITDA margin decline QoQ in 3Q10 and remain flat in 4Q bringing annual EBITDA margin to 30%, still the highest among Russian steels.

Our forward‐looking forecasts are ahead of consensus

Our financial forecasts for NLMK reflect our positive view on the company’s growth potential and its unique offering of HVA products in Russia. We expect 2010 EBITDA of around $2.4bn, approximately 1% above the current Bloomberg consensus. Our 2011E‐12E forecasts of $3.3bn and $3.7bn respectively are 3.6% ahead and 1% below the current consensus (Figure 9).

Figure 9: NLMK ‐ Aton estimates vs consensus EBITDA Net income


2010E 2011E 2012E 3Y average

Aton estimates ($mn) 2,424 3,263 3,700 1,208 2,011 2,293

Bloomberg consensus ($mn) 2,400 3,149 3,720 1,287 1,823 2,233

Aton vs consensus (%) 1.0% 3.6% ‐0.5% 1.4% ‐6.2% 10.3% 2.7% 2.3%


Our forecast for 2010E net income of $1.2bn is 6% below consensus; however, we are 10% ahead of consensus for 2011E, with net income forecast of $2bn, and 3% ahead of consensus in 2012E with an estimate of $2.3bn. We initiate coverage of NLMK with a HOLD rating and a target price of $35.55/GDR. The target price implies just 1% upside to the current share price levels, prompting a HOLD rating. However, given the quality of the stock, its profitability leadership among Russian peers and quality of its balance sheet, we would view the company as good long‐term investments and recommend buying the stock on price dips.

42

Valuation

NLMK – valuation breakdown DCF calculation ($mn): 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E

EBIT, $mn 1,912 2,661 3,013 2,874 2,736 2,578

Less taxation (382) (532) (603) (575) (547) (516)

Tax adj. EBIT 1,529 2,129 2,410 2,299 2,189 2,063

Depreciation 512 603 687 743 754 751

Less capex (1,800) (1,800) (1,500) (900) (700) (700)

Change in working capital (381) (357) (356) (120) (47) (24)

Free cash flow (139) 575 1,241 2,022 2,197 2,089


NPV of free cash flow (25) 536 1,042 1,530 1,498 1,284


Discounted cash flow valuation: $(mn) % WACC calculation: %





Less: minorities (118) Other company‐specific risk premiums 0.0%

Less: net debt 948 Total cost of equity 12.2%










12 x Earnings 24,132 40.27

6 x EBITDA 18,750 31.29



$/GDR % $/GDR

DCF 35.32 50% 17.66

P/E 40.27 25% 10.07

EV/EBITDA 31.29 25% 7.82



Source: Aton Estimates

43

Financial Accounts

NLMK – US GAAP P&L statement ($mn) 2009 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E

Total revenue 6,140 8,167 10,074 11,875 12,396 12,571 12,632

COGS (4,150) (5,272) (6,305) (7,555) (8,159) (8,452) (8,664)

Gross profit 1,990 2,895 3,769 4,319 4,237 4,119 3,968

SG&A (1,054) (980) (1,108) (1,306) (1,364) (1,383) (1,390)

Other operating income/(expense) (44) (3) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Operating income (EBIT) 892 1,912 2,661 3,013 2,874 2,736 2,578

EBITDA 1,370 2,424 3,263 3,700 3,617 3,491 3,329

DD&A (478) (512) (603) (687) (743) (754) (751)

Net interest income/(expense) (111) (107) (133) (131) (95) (56) (11)

Associates ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

FX (loss)/gain (78) (234) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Others (recurring) (108) (28) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Pre‐tax profit 595 1,543 2,528 2,882 2,779 2,680 2,567

Tax (182) (370) (506) (576) (556) (536) (513)

Equity in net losses/(earnings) of associates (315) 6 9 10 10 10 9

Net income pre‐exceptionals 98 1,178 2,031 2,316 2,233 2,154 2,063

Minority interest 117 30 (20) (23) (22) (22) (21)

Net income (post exceptionals) 215 1,208 2,011 2,293 2,211 2,132 2,043

EPS ($/GDR) 0.36 2.02 3.36 3.83 3.69 3.56 3.41

Dividend per GDR ($) 0.07 0.31 1.01 1.15 1.11 1.07 1.02

Number of GDRs (mn) 599 599 599 599 599 599 599


NLMK – US GAAP balance sheet ($mn) 2009 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E

Cash & short term investments 1,699 1,188 862 521 1,714 3,136 4,613

Accounts receivable 913 1,215 1,498 1,766 1,844 1,870 1,879

Inventory 1,134 1,441 1,723 2,064 2,230 2,310 2,367

Other current assets 131 131 131 131 131 131 131

Total current assets 3,877 3,973 4,213 4,482 5,917 7,445 8,989

PP&E 7,316 8,604 9,801 10,615 10,771 10,717 10,666

Intangible assets 760 760 760 760 760 760 760

Investments 468 468 468 468 468 468 468

Other long‐term assets 81 122 122 122 122 122 122

Total non‐current assets 8,625 9,954 11,151 11,965 12,121 12,067 12,016

Total assets 12,502 13,927 15,364 16,446 18,039 19,512 21,005

Accounts payable 841 1,069 1,278 1,531 1,654 1,713 1,756

Short term debt 557 600 600 600 600 600 600

Other current liabilities 19 19 19 19 19 19 19

Total current liabilities 1,417 1,688 1,897 2,151 2,273 2,333 2,376

Long term debt 1,939 2,100 1,900 1,100 1,000 900 900

Deferred tax liabilities 396 396 396 396 396 396 396

Other non‐current liabilities 140 140 140 140 140 140 140

Total long‐term liabilities 2,475 2,636 2,436 1,636 1,536 1,436 1,436

Total liabilities 3,892 4,324 4,334 3,787 3,809 3,769 3,812

Minority interests (108) (108) (108) (108) (108) (108) (108)

Total shareholders equity 8,610 9,603 11,031 12,659 14,229 15,743 17,193

Total liabilities and equity 12,502 13,927 15,364 16,446 18,039 19,512 21,005


44

NLMK – US GAAP cash flow ($mn) 2009 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E

Net income 98 1,178 2,031 2,316 2,233 2,154 2,063

DD&A add‐back 478 512 603 687 743 754 751

(Increase) / decrease in working capital 859 (381) (357) (356) (120) (47) (24)

Other operating cash flow items (41) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Cash flow from operations 1,394 1,310 2,277 2,647 2,856 2,862 2,790

Capital expenditure (1,121) (1,800) (1,800) (1,500) (900) (700) (700)

Acquisitions ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other investing cash flow (651) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Cash flow from investing (1,771) (1,800) (1,800) (1,500) (900) (700) (700)

Dividends paid (2) (185) (603) (688) (663) (640) (613)

Share (repurchase)/issue ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Increase/(decrease) interest bearing liabilities (533) 164 (200) (800) (100) (100) ‐

Cash flow from financing (535) (21) (803) (1,488) (763) (740) (613)

Net increase/(decrease) in cash and cash equivalents 2,159 1,247 736 410 69 1,262 2,684

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year (912) (511) (326) (341) 1,193 1,422 1,477

Cash and cash equivalents at end of year 1,247 736 410 69 1,262 2,684 4,161


45

We initiate coverage of Severstal with a BUY rating and a target price of $18.57/GDR. We see the main short‐term driver for stock performance in expectations of the upcoming IPO of the company’s gold producing business. A swing back to profitability in the US and European units could provide upside in the medium term.

Figure 1: Gold business offers substantial EBITDA expansion

Europe

12%

USA

27%

Gold

3%

Russian

Steel

44%

Mining

excl gold

14%

Sales by bus iness (2Q10)

Mining

excl.

gold

31%

Russian

Steel

50%

Gold

8%

USA

6%

Europe

5%

EBITDA by bus iness (2Q10)


Potential IPO of the gold business remains one of the main drivers for the stock. Although the company had not revealed the dates and a possible structure of the potential IPO of its gold business (recently renamed Nord Gold), it has confirmed that it is considering such an options. To illustrate a possible re‐rating of the stock, we examined Norilsk Nickel’s experience with the Polyus spin‐off and the impact it had on Norilsk’s share price. Based on the gold business’s current margins, we believe it could be worth anywhere between $2.4 and $5.1bn, a potential upside of around 15% to 20% to its current valuation as an asset consolidated within Severstal. Recent financials show it is too early to write‐off Severstal’s international assets. Severstal’s 2Q10 results surprised the market on the upside, with the biggest surprise seen in the return of its US and European businesses to positive EBITDA. We believe it is too early to write‐off Severstal’s involvement in the US and Lucchini, as these businesses may swing to profitability once economic conditions in the developed countries improve. We continue to include Lucchini in our valuation of Severstal. We consolidate Lucchini in our forecasts for Severstal, as we believe a return to profitability may bring these assets back into the company’s fold. The company also believes its audited financial numbers will continue to include Lucchini due to the structure of the deal with Alexei Mordashov, which allows the company to buy back Lucchini for its original sale price of €1. Initiating with a BUY rating and a target price of $18.57/GDR. Our target price implies 24% upside potential to the current price. A gold business IPO remains the clearest short‐term driver and could possibly add some 15‐20% on top of that upside. In addition, improvements in developed economies may bring US and European units back into profit, providing further upside to our current financial forecasts.

SEVERSTAL All Eyes on Gold

BUY

Target price $18.57


Bloomberg code SVST.LI

Reuters code CHMFq.L

Price (ordinary, $) 15.00

Price (pref, $) n/a


ADR ratio (x) 1 : 1

Share data

No. of ordinary shares (mn) 1,008 No. of ordinary GDRs (mn) 1,008 No. of pref shares (mn) n/a 3M average daily t/o ($mn) 72 Free float (%) 17.6% Market capitalisation ($mn) 15,116


Major shareholders

Alexey Mordashov 82.37%

FINANCIALS (mn) 2009 10E 11E

Revenue 13,054 17,632 19,563

EBITDA 846 3,315 3,961

EBIT ‐145 1,921 2,637

Net income ‐1,037 9 1,598

EPS ‐1.03 0.01 1.59

CFPS

VALUATION

P/E (x) n/a n/a 9.5

P/CF (x) 9.2 14.1 11.5

EV/EBITDA (x) 23.4 6.0 5.0

EV/Sales (x) 1.5 1.1 1.0

P/BV (x) 1.9 1.7 1.4

RoCE (%) ‐7.9% 0.1% 11.1%

RoE (%) ‐13.2% 0.1% 15.3%

PERFORMANCE

1 month (%) 11.5%

3 month (%) 37.1%

12 month (%) 80.8%

52‐week high ($) 12.80

52‐week low ($) 3.25


46

Potential Gold IPO – Lessons from Norilsk’s Polyus Spin-Off A potential IPO of Severstal’s gold assets remains one of the main attractions of the stock – this event could be a catalyst for a significant re‐rating of Severstal in our view. In this section, we examine potential parallels with Norilsk Nickel’s spin‐off of Polyus Gold several years ago, to assess the likely impact of a similar move on Severstal. Severstal’s gold assets. Severstal’s current gold portfolio consists of the following: Former Celtic Gold assets: the Suzdal and Zherek fields. Severstal’s attributable

resources are around 2.0mn oz (resource estimates available at acquisition). High River Gold (HRG): 70.4% interest; Severstal attributable resources total is

around 5mn of gold equivalent oz, based on HRG’s latest data. HRG, in turn, owns: 84.94% of Buryat Zoloto (BRZL), giving Severstal a 42.6% holding in BRZL 90% in Taparko, giving Severstal a 45.1% holding

Nerengri Metallik and ZAO Mine Alekperovo (Tobornoe and Pogromnoe fields): Russian C1+C2 category resources of approximately 600k oz (18mn tonnes) of gold

Semgeo (Kazakhstan): C1+C2 category reserves of around 30mn tonnes (approximately 1mn oz) of gold

Severnaya Zolotorudnaya Kompaniya: Russian P1+P2+P3 resources of around 8mn oz of gold

Prognoz silver deposit: 50% interest, around 1mn oz of gold equivalent resources Severstal also holds 93.38% of Oslo‐listed Canadian miner Crew Gold Corporation (SVST attributable resources of approximately 4.9mn oz). Severstal’s total resource base has been reported at 23.8 mn of gold equivalent oz under JORC classification. Background to Polyus spin‐off. Norilsk Nickel spun off its gold producing assets into Polyus Gold (PLZL) in 2006. The newly formed company was listed in Russia in mid‐2006; its ADRs were listed in London in Dec 2006. At the time of Polyus’s Russia listing, Norilsk’s market cap was around $29bn. Polyus was valued at $13bn for its Russian listing, although the market cap fell to just over $9bn at the time of the London listing.

Between Polyus’s Russian debut and London listing, Norilsk’s market cap rose above $37bn (a 30% or $8.6bn increase – just below Polyus’s market cap at the time of its London listing). Polyus is currently valued at around $9.6bn in Russia, or $11.8bn based on its GDR price in London. This values the company at 14.3x 2010E EV/EBITDA and 24.3x 2010E P/E (based on the current London valuation). In terms of mineral resources data, the company is valued at approximately $100 per troy oz of YE10E Measured, Indicated and Inferred resources (around 95mn oz by our conservative estimates). Suggested valuation range for Severstal’s gold assets. As can be seen from Figure 2 below, Severstal’s 2009 gold production was about 45% of that of Polyus, while 2009 margins for its gold assets were also broadly comparable to those of Polyus (e.g. EBITDA margin of 45.6% in 2009 vs Polyus’s 45.8%). However, while consolidated within Severstal its gold business continues to be valued at parent company’s “steel” multiples. Based on the consensus 2011E financials these are currently 5.4x for EV/EBITDA, 9.8x P/E. Based on those multiples, gold business is valued at only around $1.6‐2.1bn. In our assessment of a potential value of Severstal’s gold asset as a stand‐alone business we used multiples similar to those at which Polyus is currently valued ($100/oz of resources, 14x EV/EBITDA, 24x P/E). We were somewhat conservative in our 2010E financial estimates for Severstal’s gold business, which gave us valuations ranging from $2.4bn to $5.1bn (and that is ignoring potential growth in 2011). This would mean that an IPO of the gold assets could realise additional $2.3‐3.1bn of value for Severstal shareholders (around 15‐20% of Severstal’s current market cap).

47

Figure 2: Polyus Gold, Norilsk Nickel and Severstal Gold operating, financial and valuation data Units Polyus Norilsk Nickel Severstal’ gold assets

2005 2006 2009 2010E 2009 2010E

Average spot gold price $/troy oz 445 605 974 1250 974 1250

Key operating and financial data:

Production troy oz 1,038,000 1,215,000 1,261,000 1,390,000 534,000 650,000

Gold sales $mn 473 735 1,199 1690 518 810

Operating profit $mn 119 212 432 670 Reported

EBITDA $mn 175 306 549 805 236 365

EBITDA margin % 37.0% 41.7% 45.8% 47.6% 45.6% 45%

Net income $mn 112 1,158 322 485 Estimated 130 165

Net margin % 27% 28.7% Assumed 25% 20%

Mineral resources:

Measured + Indicated + Inferred gold equiv. oz 119,951,394 119,951,000 110,215,000 95,000,000 Reported 23,800,000

Market caps:

Market cap at PLZL Russia listing (12.05.2006) $bn 12.9 28.8

Market cap at PLZL London listing (18.12.2006) $bn 9.3 37.4

Severstal

Market cap current (Russia) $bn 9.6 9.6 34.3 15.1

Market cap current (London) $bn 11.8 11.8 35.3 15.1

PLZL valuation matrix:

$/oz of Measured + Indicated resources $/oz 152 119 148

$/oz of Measured + Indicated + Inferred resources $/oz 78 87 101 Gold business Gold business Value

EV/EBITDA x 25.4 21.0 14.3 valued on valued on difference As % of SVST

P/E x 8.0 36.7 24.3 “steel” “gold” vs “steel” current

P/Sales x 12.7 9.8 7.0 multiples multiples multiples market cap

($bn) ($bn) ($bn) (%)

Current “steel” multiples for Severstal (based on 2011E consensus):

EV/EBITDA x 5.4 2.0

P/E x 9.8 1.6

Valuation estimates for Severstal's gold business:

$ per oz of Measured + Indicated + Inferred resources x 100 2.4

EV/EBITDA x 14 5.1 3.1 21%

P/E x 24 4.0 2.3 16%


48

US Expansion Put on Hold Severstal was one of the first Russian companies to start expanding overseas and it was the first such company to make a major investment in the US. The acquisitions turned Severstal into one of the largest steel producers in America (it is currently ranked the fourth‐largest US producer by installed capacity). The company’s strategy was to acquire underutilised, underperforming assets with the intention of applying its business turnaround experience, targeted capital investment and increased operational synergies to transform the performance and profitability of these units. Severstal’s North American expansion plans came to a grinding halt when the US economy fell into recession. The output by the domestic auto industry, Severstal’s main target customer in the US, declined sharply, reducing demand for flat steel from the company’s facilities. Similarly to its Russian peers, Severstal was heavily in debt and faced a bleak future both in Russia and the US. This prompted many commentators to write‐off Severstal’s investments in the US as a complete failure.

Too early to write off Severstal’s North American involvement

US steelmakers were among the worst hit in the economic downturn compared to their global peers. They cut their crude steel out sharply and operated at below 50% capacity for about seven months (Dec 2008 – June 2009) (Figure 3).

Figure 3: US steel output – a long, unsteady recovery

100.0%

43.5%

78.6%89.7%

70.2%

33.5%

0

2

4

6

8

10


20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

US Steel Output (mnt) Peak Rate Uti l i sation (%)Capaci ty Uti l i sation (%)


Severstal was forced to gradually shut down hot metal output at its plants and recognise an impairment loss of around $1bn in 2009. Despite the losses, we do not think the US investment is a lost cause. The company started implementing an active cost reduction programme through headcount reductions in 2009. With time, lower raw material costs have also helped. Nevertheless, while the company hoped to bring it US business EBITDA to breakeven in 3Q09, the unit remained loss making on EBITDA well into 2010. However, Severstal’s cost management efforts finally paid off in 2Q10, when the US business returned a positive EBITDA of $59mn after six loss‐making quarters. The business is not yet out of the woods, but encouragingly, it nearly broke even in 2Q10 on the operational level with an operating loss of only $1mn.

1H10 results – ahead of expectations, encouraging outlook

Severstal’s 2Q10 IFRS results surprised the market on the upside. The company’s 2Q10 EBITDA reached $955mn, 11% ahead of Interfax consensus of $857mn and nearly double its 1Q10 EBITDA of $492mn. The company reported a 2Q10 net profit of

49

$192mn (vs a net loss of $785mn in 1Q10). This was affected by the loss recognised on the sale of the Lucchini stake. Excluding this loss, net profit was $393mn, significantly ahead of consensus expectations of $267mn. In contrast to some other Russian steelmakers, Severstal management’s guidance for 2H10 was cautiously positive, which gave a boost to positive sentiment on the stock. The company expects to see higher output levels and higher prices due to the gradual improvement in steel markets through the end of 2010 on the back of restocking and higher demand.

Forward‐looking forecasts – EBITDA ahead of consensus on inclusion of Lucchini

After a meeting with the company, we have decided to keep Lucchini within our estimates as the deal with Severstal’s owner, Alexei Mordashov, is structured so that audited results may end up consolidating Lucchini back within the group. In addition, keeping Lucchini in allows for better historical comparisons in our view. In terms of EBITDA, we expect Severstal to generate around $3.3bn in 2010 (nearly four times its 2009 EBITDA of $844mn, but still below the peak of $5.4bn generated in 2008). We forecast further improvements in 2011‐12E with EBITDA reaching $4bn and $4.2bn respectively. Our forecasts for 2010E, 2011E, 2012E are 18%, 12% and 5% ahead of Bloomberg consensus, respectively. On the net income line we expect a positive performance in 2010 limited to just $9mn – this is substantially lower than consensus expectations of $766mn, which we believe once again is due to the treatment of Lucchini (we continue to include 2010 loss from that business in our numbers). We expect the situation to improve considerably in 2011E and 2012E, with net income reaching $1.6bn and $1.8bn respectively. This is 4% above and 2% below consensus estimates, respectively. We provide a summary of our forecasts for 2010‐12E in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4: Severstal ‐ Aton estimates vs consensus EBITDA Net Income

Year‐end: Dec 2010E 2011E 2012E 3Y Average

2010E 2011E 2012E 3Y Average

Aton estimates ($mn) 3,315 3,961 4,155 9 1,598 1,802


Aton vs consensus (%) 17.6% 11.9% 4.5% 11.4% ‐98.8% 4.0% ‐1.9% ‐32.3%


Initiate with a BUY and a target price of $18.57/share. Our BUY rating is based on the potential 24% upside to the current share price implied by our target price. We believe the share price does not yet fully reflect the potential upside from re‐rating that could follow the potential gold asset IPO, which could create some $2‐3bn of additional value for shareholders. Moreover, while Russian steel and mining assets are expected to continue performing strongly, we could see an upside surprise from Severstal’s US and European businesses, once steel markets there recover.

50

Valuation

Severstal – valuation breakdown DCF calculation ($mn): 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E

EBIT, $mn 1,921 2,637 2,851 2,793 2,706 2,686

Less taxation (480) (659) (713) (698) (676) (672)

Tax adj. EBIT 1,441 1,977 2,139 2,095 2,029 2,015

Depreciation 957 1,059 1,095 1,092 1,088 1,086

Less capex (779) (1,583) (1,525) (1,275) (1,025) (775)

Change in working capital (1,106) (378) (399) (55) 93 77

Free cash flow 512 1,074 1,310 1,857 2,186 2,403


NPV of free cash flow 93 1,004 1,107 1,419 1,511 1,503


Discounted cash flow valuation: ($mn) % WACC calculation: %
















10 x Earnings 15,980 15.85

5 x EBITDA 15,134 15.01



$/GDR % $/GDR

DCF 21.70 50% 10.85

P/E 15.85 25% 3.96

EV/EBITDA 15.01 25% 3.75



Source: Aton Estimates

51

Financial Accounts

Severstal – IFRS net income statement ($mn) 2008 2009 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E

Gross revenue 22,393 13,054 17,632 19,563 21,131 20,922 20,522 20,222

Cost of goods sold (16,500) (11,356) (13,444) (14,529) (15,736) (15,615) (15,347) (15,103)

Gross profit 5,893 1,698 4,188 5,034 5,395 5,307 5,175 5,119

SGA and distribution expenses (2,145) (1,600) (1,926) (2,149) (2,296) (2,266) (2,221) (2,185)

Other operating income / (expense) 468 (244) (341) (248) (248) (248) (248) (248)

EBITDA 5,366 846 3,315 3,961 4,155 4,042 3,950 3,898

EBITDA margin 24.0% 6.5% 18.8% 20.2% 19.7% 19.3% 19.2% 19.3%

Operating profit 4,216 (145) 1,921 2,637 2,851 2,793 2,706 2,686

Non operating expenses (1,009) (253) (125) (50) (50) (50) (50) (50)

EBIT 3,207 (399) 1,796 2,587 2,801 2,743 2,656 2,636

Net financing expense (353) (497) (350) (329) (261) (179) (71) 54

Forex differences (275) (205) (50) (50) (50) (50) (50) (50)

Pre‐tax profit 2,579 (1,101) 1,396 2,208 2,490 2,514 2,535 2,641

Income tax (517) (18) (349) (552) (623) (629) (634) (660)

Profit / (loss) from discontinued operations ‐ ‐ (1,037) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Profit / (loss) before minority interest 2,062 (1,119) 10 1,656 1,868 1,886 1,901 1,981

Minority interest (33) 82 (1) (58) (65) (66) (67) (69)

Profit / (loss) for the year 2,029 (1,037) 9 1,598 1,802 1,820 1,834 1,911

Net margin 9.1% ‐7.9% 0.1% 8.2% 8.5% 8.7% 8.9% 9.5%

Earnings per share:

Basic EPS per common share 2.01 (1.03) 0.01 1.59 1.79 1.81 1.82 1.90

No. of common shares outstanding 1,007 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005

No. of GDRs (1 GDR = 1 common share) 1,007 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005


Severstal – IFRS balance sheet ($mn) 2008 2009 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E

Cash and cash equivalents 2,653 2,853 848 310 207 697 1,571 2,740

Short‐term bank deposits 819 96 165 165 165 165 165 165

Receivables 2,006 1,484 2,208 2,508 2,731 2,797 2,744 2,704

Inventories 4,272 2,974 3,315 3,782 4,192 4,171 4,099 4,034

Other current assets 927 753 942 1,018 1,061 1,058 1,048 1,039

Assets held for sale 9 24 24 24 24 24 24 24


Plant, property and equipment 9,827 9,485 9,134 9,634 10,038 10,197 10,109 9,773

Intangible assets 1,511 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369

Other non‐current assets 469 587 587 587 587 587 587 587

Restricted cash 22 18 18 18 18 18 18 18


Total assets 22,514 19,644 18,610 19,416 20,392 21,083 21,735 22,453

Short‐term debt and current portion of long‐term debt 2,039 1,478 889 589 439 289 139 (11)

Payables 1,600 1,395 1,400 1,821 2,075 2,064 2,029 1,996

Liabilities related to assets held for sale 0 12 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other current liabilities 1,199 943 953 997 1,020 1,018 1,012 1,007


Long‐term debt 6,227 5,749 4,653 3,653 2,653 1,653 653 (347)

Other non‐current liabilities 1,896 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,691


Total liabilities 12,961 11,268 9,586 8,751 7,877 6,715 5,523 4,336


Total shareholders' equity 9,051 7,878 8,804 10,444 12,294 14,148 15,991 17,896


52

Severstal – IFRS cash flow statement ($mn) 2008 2009 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E

Operating activities:

EBIT 3,207 (399) 1,796 2,587 2,801 2,743 2,656 2,636

Adjustments for non‐cash items:

Depreciation and amortization 1,087 957 957 1,059 1,095 1,092 1,088 1,086

Impairment/(reversal of impairment) of assets 1,540 219 100 25 25 25 25 25

Other adjustments for non‐cash items 74 (284) 139 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Operating profit before working capital changes 5,909 493 2,991 3,670 3,922 3,860 3,769 3,747

Changes in working capital (1,018) 1,722 (1,155) (378) (399) (55) 93 77

Cash generated from operations 4,891 2,215 1,836 3,292 3,523 3,805 3,862 3,825

Interest paid (excluding banking operations) (363) (552) (601) (479) (367) (275) (189) (103)

Income tax paid (1,094) (52) (349) (552) (623) (629) (634) (660)

Net cash provided by operating activities 3,434 1,611 886 2,261 2,533 2,901 3,040 3,062

Investing activities:

Additions to property, plant and equipment (2,031) (946) (779) (1,583) (1,525) (1,275) (1,025) (775)

Other investing activities 288 692 (98) 85 38 14 9 31

Net cash used for investing activities (4,811) (254) (877) (1,499) (1,487) (1,261) (1,016) (744)

Financing activities:

Proceeds from debt finance 7,542 4,355 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Repayment of debt finance (3,686) (5,421) (1,685) (1,300) (1,150) (1,150) (1,150) (1,150)

Other financing activities (1,432) (92) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Net cash provided by financing activities 2,424 (1,158) (1,685) (1,300) (1,150) (1,150) (1,150) (1,150)

Effects of exchange rate changes (17) 2 (330) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year 1,623 2,653 2,853 848 310 207 697 1,571

Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 1,030 200 (2,006) (537) (104) 490 874 1,168

Cash and cash equivalents at year end 2,653 2,853 848 310 207 697 1,571 2,740


Disclosures Appendix

This investment research has been prepared by ATON LLC, regulated by the Federal Service for Financial Markets of the Russian Federation, and, except as otherwise specified herein, is communicated by ATONLINE LIMITED, regulated by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission.

The investment research is not for distribution to the public or a large number of persons, and it is not an advertisement to an unlimited group of persons, of securities, or related financial instruments, but it is personal to named recipients. All recipients are persons who have professional experience in matters relating to investments or high net worth entities, and other persons to whom it may otherwise lawfully be communicated (all such persons together being referred to as “named recipients”). This investment research must not be acted on or relied on by persons who are not named recipients. Any investment or investment activity to which this research relates is only available to named recipients and might be engaged in only with named recipients.

The securities described in the investment research may not be eligible for sale in all jurisdictions or to certain categories of investors. Options, derivative products and futures are not suitable for all investors and trading in these instruments is considered risky. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. The value of investments may fall as well as rise and the investor may not get back the amount initially invested. Some investments may not be readily realisable since the market in the securities is illiquid or there is no secondary market for the investor’s interest and therefore valuing the investment and identifying the risk to which the investor is exposed may be difficult to quantify. Investments in illiquid securities involve a high degree of risk and are suitable only for sophisticated investors who can tolerate such risk and do not require an investment easily and quickly converted into cash. Foreign‐currency‐denominated securities are subject to fluctuations in exchange rates that could have an adverse effect on the value or the price of, or income derived from, the investment. Other risk factors affecting the price, value or income of an investment include but are not necessarily limited to political risks, economic risks, credit risks, and market risks. Investing in emerging markets such as Russia, other CIS and emerging markets securities involves a high degree of risk and investors should perform their own due diligence before investing.

This document has been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research. This investment research is not subject to any prohibition on dealing ahead of the dissemination of investment research. It has been prepared with all reasonable care and is not knowingly misleading in whole or in part.

The information in this investment research does not constitute an offer, solicitation or recommendation for the purchase or sale of any securities or other financial instruments nor does it constitute advice, a personal recommendation or otherwise or an expression of our view as to whether a particular security or financial instrument is suitable or appropriate for you and meets your financial or any other objectives. This information is not based on the particular circumstances of any named recipient.

The information herein is obtained from various publicly available new sources which we consider to be reliable but its accuracy and completeness cannot be guaranteed. It is not intended to be a comprehensive summary of newsworthy financial or business events and it may not be relied upon as such. The information and views given herein are subject to change without notice to the recipients.

ATON LLC and ATONLINE LIMITED may have a position and/or trade for their own accounts as odd‐lot dealer, market maker, block positioner, specialist, liquidity maker and/or arbitrageur in any securities of issuers mentioned herein or in related investments and also may from time to time perform investment services or other services for, or solicit investment services or other business from, any entity mentioned herein.

This research is not intended for access by retail investors outside of the Russian Federation. Any investment or investment activity to which this research relates is not available to retail clients and will be engaged in only with persons other than retail clients.

The publication and distribution of this investment research and other information about securities in some jurisdictions may be restricted by law. Unless otherwise stated, this research is intended only for persons who are eligible recipients of the research in the jurisdiction, in which the recipient of the research is located or belongs to. Disregarding these restrictions may be regarded as a law violation within corresponding jurisdictions of securities. This research is not intended for access in the United States of America (including dependent territories and the District of Columbia), Australia, Canada and Japan.

Analyst certification This investment research (“the research”) has been prepared by the analyst(s) of ATON LLC, whose name(s) appear(s) on the front page of the research. Each analyst certifies that with respect to the company and such securities and markets, all the views expressed in the research accurately reflect his or her personal views about the company and any and all of such securities and markets. Each analyst and/or persons connected with any analyst may have interacted with sales and trading personnel, or similar, for the purpose of gathering, synthesising and interpreting market information.

Any ratings, forecasts, estimates, opinions or views in the research constitute a judgment as at the date of the research. If the date of the research is not current, the views and contents may not reflect the analysts’ current thinking. The research has been produced independently of the company and any ratings, forecasts, estimates and opinions reflect only the analyst’s personal view. While all reasonable care has been taken to ensure that the facts stated therein are accurate and that the forecasts, estimates, opinions and views contained therein are fair and reasonable, neither the analysts, the company, nor any of its directors, officers or employees, have verified the contents thereof unless disclosed otherwise below. Accordingly, neither the analysts, the company, nor any of its directors, officers or employees, shall be in any way responsible for the contents thereof, and no reliance should be placed on the accuracy, fairness or completeness of the information contained in the research.

Neither the analysts, the company, nor any of its directors, officers or employees, accept any liability whatsoever for any loss howsoever arising from any use of the research or its contents or otherwise arising in connection therewith. Each analyst and/or persons connected with any of them may have acted upon or used the information herein contained, or the data or analysis on which it is based, before its publication. This research may not be relied upon by any of its recipients or any other person in making investment decisions with respect to the company’s securities. The research does not constitute a valuation of the company’s business, assets or securities for the purposes of the legislation on valuation activities for the company’s country.

No part of his or her compensation was, or will be, directly or indirectly related to the specific ratings, forecasts, estimates, opinions or views in the research. Analysts’ compensation is determined based upon activities and services intended to benefit investor clients. Like all of ATON LLC employees, analysts receive compensation that is impacted by overall ATON LLC profitability, which includes revenues from other business units within ATON LLC.

Each analyst or his or her affiliated company or other persons is or may be a member of underwriting group in a respect of proposed offering of the securities of the company. Each analyst may in the future participate in an offering of the company’s securities.

Investment ratings Investment ratings are a function of ATONLINE LIMITED expectation of total return on equity (forecast price appreciation and dividend yield within the next 12 months, unless stated otherwise in the research).

The investment ratings may be determined by the following standard ranges:

Buy (expected total return of 15% or more);

Hold (expected total return of 0‐15%);

Sell (expected negative total return).

Standard ranges do not always apply to emerging markets securities and ratings may be assigned on the basis of the analyst’s knowledge of the securities. Investment ratings are determined at the time of initiation of coverage of a company of equity securities, or a change in target price of any of the company’s equity securities. At other times, the expected total returns may fall outside of the range used at the time of setting a rating because of price movement and/or volatility. Such interim deviations will be permitted but will be subject to review by Research Department Management. It may be necessary to temporarily place the investment rating “Under Review” during which period the previously stated investment rating may no longer reflect the analysts’ current thinking. For companies where ATONLINE LIMITED has not expressed a commitment to provide continuous coverage, to keep you informed, analysts may prepare research covering significant events or background information without an investment rating. Your decision to buy or sell a security should be based upon your personal investment objectives and should be made only after evaluating the security’s expected performance and risk.

Disclaimer © 2010 ATONLINE LIMITED All rights reserved. Regulated by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (Licence No: CIF 104/09).

[email protected]

Andrew Risk

+7 (495) 777 6677 (ext. 2641)

[email protected]

7 (495) 213 0335

[email protected]

Vlad Nigmatullin

+7 (495) 777 6677 (ext. 2679)

Elena Kozhukhova

+7 (495) 777 6677 (ext. 2672)

[email protected]

Technical Analysis

fax: +7 (495) 777 8876

www.aton.ru

[email protected]

+7 (495) 777 6677 (ext. 2678)

Anna Martynova

TranslatorEditor

+7 (495) 777 6677 (ext. 2686)

Thomas Lavrakas

+7 (495) 777 6677 (ext. 2675)

CY‐1096 Nicosia, Cyprus

tel.: +357 (22) 680015

fax: +357 (22) 680016

Banks

[email protected]

Nikita Melnikov

+7 (495) 777 6677 (ext. 2659)

Telecoms & Media

+7 (495) 213 0339

[email protected]

Stanislav Yudin

[email protected]

+7 (495) 213 0340

[email protected]

Alexei Yazikov

[email protected]

[email protected]

+7 (495) 777 6677 (ext 2643)

ATON RESEARCH TEAM

[email protected]

Irina Skvortsova

[email protected]

+7 (495) 213 0334

Ivan Nikolaev

+7 (495) 213 0337

Consumer Goods & Retail

[email protected] [email protected]

+7 (495) 777 6677 (ext. 2644)

Mikhail Pak

+7 (495) 213 0338

[email protected]@aton.ru

+7 (495) 213 0336

Special Situations & Small Caps GroupMetals & Mining

Dinnur Galikhanov Iouli Matevossov

Slava Bunkov

+7 (495) 213 0344

Peter Westin

Chief Equity Strategist/Economist

Sergey Kolokolov

Head of Research

Denis Sarantsev

+7 (495) 287 8650

+7 (495) 213 0341

[email protected]

Elena Savchik

+7 (495) 213 0343

[email protected]

Oil & GasStrategy & Economics

[email protected]

Head of Editorial and Production

Utilities

+7 (495) 777 6677 (ext. 2671)

Ilya MakarovIlya Koupreyev

Alexey Evstratenkov

Marina Gutneva

[email protected]

Head of Trading

2nd Floor, P.C. 2066, Nicosia, Cyprus

Office:

Phone +7 (495) 777 6677

ATON <GO> (Bloomberg)

Moscow, 105062, Russia

www.atonbroker.com

20 Kyriacos Matsis Avenue, 4th Floor,tel.: +7 (495) 777 8877

Atonline Limited

Central City Tower

20 Ovchinnikovskaya Embankment, Bld.1

Aton OOO (LLC)

Registered address:

Themistokli Dervi, 5, Elenion Building

Regulated by Cyprus Securities & Exchange CommissionRTS, MICEX, NAUFOR Member

Sergey Kazaryan

[email protected]

+7 (495) 777 6677 (ext. 2674)+7 (495) 777 6677 (ext. 2645)

[email protected]

Editor

Anna Bogdanova

+7 (495) 777 6677 (ext. 2657)

Editorial

[email protected]

+7 (495) 777 6677 (ext. 2648)

Lauren Mandy

[email protected]

Documents

Aton - Dinnur Galikhanov - Russian Steel Makers - 2010.10.25 (Eng)