With a combined revenue of $21 trillion and $2.1 trillion in profits, the 2026 Fortune 500 is the definitive list of America's largest companies.

Fortune 500

Almost $20 trillion in revenue—and a record-breaking $1.87 trillion in profits. Introducing the 2025 Fortune 500, the definitive list of the biggest companies in America.

Industries included in the sector are diversified and specialty chemical manufacturers.

Fortune Sector Leaders: Chemicals

The Fortune 500, in its 70th year in 2024, ranks the biggest U.S. companies by revenue.

The Fortune 500, in its 69th year in 2023, ranks the biggest U.S. companies by revenue.

This year’s Fortune 500 marks the 68th running of the list.

This year’s Fortune 500 marks the 67th running of the list.

The global specialty materials company is a leading producer of acetic acid, an industrial chemical often used as a solvent for paints and resins.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 66th running of the list.

F500-2020-470-Celanese

The technology and specialty materials company makes products used in the chemicals, paints, automotive, consumer electronics, and food-and-beverage industries, among others.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 65th running of the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 64th running of the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 63rd running of the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 62nd running of the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 61st running of the list. Wal-Mart claims the top spot again. See who made the list.

Wal-Mart stayed on top as its sales crept closer to half-a-trillion dollars. Apple moved into the top five. And UnitedHealth Group continued its steady climb. 

Key Financials (last Fiscal Year)

Revenues ($M)

Profits ($M)

Assets ($M)

Total Stockholder Equity ($M)

Profit Ratios

Profit as % of Revenues

Profits as % of Assets

Profits as % of Stockholder Equity

Earnings Per Share (last Fiscal Year)

Earnings Per Share ($)

EPS % Change (from prior fiscal year)

EPS % Change (5 year annual rate)

EPS % Change (10 year annual rate)

Total Return

Total Return to Investors (last year)

Total Return to Investors (5 year, annualized)

Total Return to Investors (10 year, annualized)

Celanese Corporation is a chemical company that manufactures and sells engineered polymers worldwide. Its products are used in industries such as automotive, medical, electronics, appliances, and construction.

Q2 2026

Q1 2026

Q4 2025

Q3 2025

Q2 2025

Q1 2025

Q4 2024

Celanese (CE): Company Profile, Stock Price, News, Rankings

legacy

Celanese

celanese

Greetings, and welcome to the Celanese Q4 twenty twenty four Earnings Call and Webcast. At this time, all participants are in a listen only mode. A question and answer session will follow the formal presentation. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce Bill Cunningham, Vice President of Investor Relations.

Thanks, Daryl. Welcome to the Celanese Corporation fourth quarter twenty twenty four earnings conference call. My name is Bill Cunningham, Vice President of Investor Relations. With me today on the call are Scott Richardson, President and Chief Executive Officer and Chuck Irish, Chief Financial Officer. Celenese distributed its fourth quarter earnings release via Business Wire and posted prepared comments and a summary presentation of key 2025 actions on our Investor Relations website yesterday afternoon.

As a reminder, we'll discuss non GAAP financial measures today. You can find definitions of these measures as well as reconciliations to the comparable GAAP measures on our website. Today's presentation will also include forward looking statements. Please review the cautionary language regarding forward looking statements, which can be found at the end of both the press release and the prepared comments. Form eight K reports containing all of these materials have also been submitted to the SEC.

Before we open it up for questions, I'd like to turn the call over to Scott Richardson for some opening remarks.

Thanks, Bill, and good morning, everyone. I strongly believe Celanese is a company that has cash generation, productivity and cost reduction in its DNA. These core competencies have driven shareholder value over our twenty years as a public company. We are keenly focused on invigorating and capitalizing on these foundational capabilities and how we lead and drive business every day to improve performance and drive value creation. My first two months as CEO have been about prioritizing and driving action.

Decisive steps we have taken to date include the following. We have executed on over $75,000,000 worth of cost actions that we outlined in our Q3 earnings call. We have reduced our 2025 capital plan to $300,000,000 to $350,000,000 which is about $100,000,000 reduction versus our spend last year. We have added a new leader to the Engineered Materials business in Todd Elliott to bring a fresh perspective and new energy to reducing complexity and driving improved results. We have added Chris Kuehn and Scott Sutton to our Board of Directors to bring additional finance and operational expertise to our boardroom given the prioritization of cash generation, margin expansion, productivity and deleveraging.

And we have added a finance and business review committee to the Board of Directors, which Scott Sutton and I will jointly chair. This committee will help evaluate all options to improve the company's operating model performance, drive cash generation and review our portfolio. We are taking the right steps to accelerate shareholder value creation and restore our performance at top decile levels in the industry. We are moving forward with intensity and aggressiveness and are not hesitating to make bold changes to generate cash and deleverage the balance sheet. We know the journey in front of us is not an easy one, but we are energized by the opportunity ahead.

We will share wins no matter the size as we progress in the coming months, and I look forward to reporting on our progress as we advance our plans to improve performance and drive value creation. Thank you. And now, Darryl, let's open the line for questions.

Thank you. We will now be conducting a question and answer session. Our first question is coming from the line of David Begleiter with Deutsche Bank. Please proceed with your question. Thank you and good morning.

Scott, you mentioned some divestitures in the prepared comments. Could you get some sense of potentially the size of these divestitures and when they might occur?

Yes. Thanks, David. We've been working aggressively on divestitures for some time now. And we did a transaction a few years ago with the food ingredients business. And I would look at most of what we're looking at is kind of around that size, some smaller, some maybe slightly a little bit bigger than that.

But that's kind of the right range to look at kind of the opportunities that we have.

And one more thing, I know equity raise is not your first choice, but given this where the balance sheet is today, what are your thoughts of potentially raising equity at some point to help delever the balance sheet?

Our capital structure is to fund our acquisitions with debt. In addition, we're unlocking cash from actions we've taken on the dividend, reduction in CapEx, reducing working capital and we're aggressively working divestitures as I just talked about. Look, equity is extremely dilutive and we don't believe that's a step that's necessary given the strength of the debt market.

Yes, David. Hey, I can add to that. Look, as Scott mentioned, we're taking numerous actions to reduce leverage. But what you're also going to see us continue to do in the meantime is be proactive in reducing the risk in our debt maturities. We have a plan and we've prepared to access the debt markets quickly and opportunistically and credit markets are very strong right now.

The principles around that are going to be to extend a portion of our more near term maturities, aligning what remains with our cash generation and we'll make sure and do that at a prudent and reasonable cost.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from the line of Frank Mitsch with Fermium Research. Please proceed with your questions.

Hey, good morning. I want to dive into your outlook for the first half of the year. As you talked about the second quarter, you indicated that it wouldn't have the $100,000,000 of non repeating items that are impacting the first quarter. And yet if I look at the dollar increase expected versus the first quarter, that only implies like $20,000,000 or so of improvement from volumes and SG and A, etcetera, which frankly looking at 2Q versus 1Q, that really doesn't seem like that much. Can you help explain some of the thinking there?

Yes. Thanks, Frank. Look, we're getting some of that here at the end of the first quarter in that number, not a lot, but a little bit. And so that incremental in the second quarter is about that rate range you talked about. There's most of we'll be on the run rate in the second quarter certainly to get to the full kind of $80,000,000 that we called out and we're continuing to work additional action.

So look, it's really important that we look at what we see right in front of us and be transparent with that. We're working a number of other actions to list not just the back half of the year, but also work. We can get more in Q1, we're going to do it and we're going to do everything we can to make that Q2 number bigger than that dollar you called out.

Got you. Thank you. And then the other thing in the prepared remarks was a comment that free cash flow for 2025 is expected to be higher than 2024. And I'm curious if you can kind of go through kind of order of magnitude that the Street should be thinking about and how do you get there?

Well, Frank, we haven't given the guide for earnings at this point in time for the year. But what I wanted to lay out are components in free cash flow below the EBITDA line that we do expect to improve significantly year over year, right. So working capital was a use of cash last year, expect to be a source of cash. Cash tax will be significantly lower. We've lowered CapEx roughly $100,000,000 right.

So those before giving a guide for earnings as we're kind of working through several things, I just wanted to lay out areas in free cash flow that will improve year over year below EBITDA.

you. Our next question comes from the line of Jeff Zekauskas with JPMorgan. Please proceed with your questions.

Thanks very much. Scott Sutton has been brought into the Board of Celanese. I was wondering, Scott, if you played a role in bringing him in or what role you played in Scott coming to the Board?

Look, Scott and I have known each other for a long time, and I'm thrilled that Scott has agreed to join the Board. I think we have been on a path as a Board that's been very deliberate in how we refresh the board with capabilities that are going to help us navigate the landscape that we're in. And Scott's the latest add in that. And he brings unique capabilities and has a track record of accelerating cash generation, deleveraging, value creation, and I'm really excited that he's going to help us in this journey.

Second question is, in your prepared remarks, what you said was that over time, you reduced costs associated with the M and M acquisition by about $250,000,000 And then later in the script, what you say is that there's been competitive dynamics in your largest product lines like nylon, which offset year over year improvements made to the cost position, as well as lower raw materials and manufacturing footprint cost reduction. So when you look at the M and M business from the time that you acquired it, like where do we stand now? Is the EBITDA really no different because price degradation has offset all of the cost improvements? Or can you give us like where did we start and where are we now with the M and M acquisition?

Yes. We have increased the EBITDA from M and M M when you look at the synergies versus where it was when we closed the transaction, Jeff. And we have seen margin degradation in some product lines within the M and M portfolio. We've also seen some margin degradation in some of the product lines in the historical selling portfolio. We've also seen several product lines that have expanded margins.

This is a critical area of focus for us this year. Reversing this margin compression that we've seen broadly across the standard part of the EM portfolio is a critical action for us that we need to deliver on to kind of lift the second half of the year.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from the line of Michael Sison with Wells Fargo. Please proceed with your questions.

Hey, guys. Good morning. Maybe a follow-up on M and M. Could you maybe just give us your thoughts on is this a good business for Sony's longer term? I mean, what do you think the potential is here?

And how do you sort of get it there? And I suspect there's some macro help that you'll need there, but just what is the potential for M and M now going forward?

Yes. Thanks, Mike. I mean, we've seen some challenges, but we've also seen some strength in several of the businesses. I mean, our high temp nylon portfolio that we acquired with the business has been a nice source of growth for us in electric vehicle applications with things like superior thermal shock characteristics in certain application areas. We have also seen kind of the elactameric products that we acquired have been have given us kind of a new growth platform in athletic apparel and footwear that we didn't have before.

So there are really nice pockets of opportunity for us and we've got to go really aggressively work that from a project pipeline standpoint. And then there are good parts of the Nylon portfolio as well. And so we've got to keep kind of keeping this machine moving from a pipeline standpoint and we've also got to make sure that we aggressively work the cost side of the equation, just given where the fundamental macro is at.

Got it. And then most folks haven't given an outlook for the full year 2025, I understand that. But should EBITDA be better in the second half versus the first half? And maybe if you don't have specifics, what should be better or could be better than the second half in terms of the walk for a better EBITDA? And then can you just give us your general thoughts on what the economic backdrop we should think about in 2025 for Celanese?

Our focus is on moving with urgency, Mike, to take decisive actions, to be able to drive wins. The actions that we're taking, we believe will be unique for us to drive value in the out quarters here. We talked about the complexity reduction, $50,000,000 to $100,000,000 of opportunity in EM. We need to make sure that we're fully leveraging the asset yields optionality model, which was challenging in the second half of last year. Historically, we've been able to drive good value by flexing up and down the value chain there.

And the third is getting back to this point I just talked about on reversing margin compression in both the standard parts of the Engineered Materials portfolio, but also in the Asset Tools business.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from the line of Ghansham Panjabi with Baird. Please proceed with your

you. Good morning, guys. Scott, first off, congrats on your new role and best wishes with everything. I guess going back to the EM segment and the new leadership there, just curious as to how we should expect strategy to sort of evolve versus what you have been doing? And then relatedly, can you just comment on your view in terms of channel inventory levels downstream to that segment, the customer level, etcetera?

Yes. Look, Todd Elliott already is bringing intensity and focus around everything that we do, looking at cost and opportunities, whether it be footprint, warehousing, distribution costs, SG and A, etcetera, but also on the customer side side as you talked about. And it really is about looking at the pockets of opportunity that are out there and accelerating in some of those higher growth segments like medical, like electric vehicles in China, future connectivity. Really getting to that customer segment level, defending the base is going to be important, but then also accelerating growth and driving project wins no matter the size.

Got it. And then obviously, Scott, we've been in a two year global manufacturing slump. You've been pulling levers on the cost side and working capital as best you can. But what are some of the other contingencies you have at your disposal in the scenario that the current paradigm continues for another year or longer in context of your debt load? Thanks.

I believe there's always more that can be done, Ghansham. And I think we've shown that with cost given where the demand landscape is at. We are looking at really all elements of the business. And I just kind of highlighted on the Engineered Materials side of things with those action steps that we're taking to reduce complexity. We have some of the similar things on the acetyl side of the house as well.

And so it's really about kind of taking a no stone unturned approach to everything that we're doing. And also then looking at really almost every single customer interaction on how we can drive incremental opportunities and then also make sure we're really extracting full value on the margin side.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from the line of Josh Spector with UBS. Please proceed with your questions.

Hey, guys. This is James Cannon on for Josh. Thanks for taking my question. I just wanted to ask on earnings power of the Acetal business. I think previously you said 2024 was a typical run rate for the near term.

I think if I think about the contract resets that would be an incremental call in $40,000,000 to $50,000,000 headwind this year. Is that the right ballpark or is there something to offset that gets us back to the 1.1?

Look, I'll echo what I just said, James. There's always opportunity for us to drive margins. And we had some contract resets. The team is working really hard to offset those. That's been hard in Asia where the supply demand landscape is at.

But we're looking for ways at which kind of leverage our optionality model there and flex up and down the value chain to be able to offset that and get back to those levels that we were at in the first half of last year.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from the line of Vincent Andrews with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question.

Thank you. Has anything changed, Scott, about the scope of assets that you might consider divesting? And I just ask that because you mentioned in the prior answer that the size would probably be similar to the divestiture that was done, the food ingredients. And my recollection was that in the past, more recently, we've been talking about maybe multiple smaller divestitures rather than the opportunity to sell a few things or one thing at a larger cost? So are you looking wider or deeper or anything changed in terms of what you're willing to divest?

Yes. We're looking at everything that has that's not critical to kind of our core operating model, Vincent. And that's really this engineered thermoplastic, thermoplastic elastomers portfolio in the Engineered Materials business and our optionality model that starts with methanol and acetic acid and goes all the way through re dispersable powders. And if it's not in those operating models, we're taking a look at it. But it needs to facilitate deleveraging.

And so that size I talked about was kind of in that range, but I also said plusminus. So there is a series of smaller ones that we get you that when added up are in that range and then there's some opportunities that are a little larger.

And then in the prepared remarks, you talked about the dissolution of the JV with Tayshaun on the Mylar. Is there anything else about your asset footprint that you're looking at, maybe areas where you're not as advantaged or places where it might make sense to take capacity out of the market?

We believe in having an efficient footprint, Vincent, and ensuring that we fully leverage the strong technical capabilities that we have in house here at Celanese. And I think we have a long term history of reducing our footprint, but yet adding capacity at our advantage sites. And that principle, that core principle of manufacturing is what we're leveraging to these M and M assets as well. By doing that, you get much greater leverage on fixed costs. And so we're consistently looking at opportunities to do that.

We've taken action. We reduced our footprint by eight sites since we did the acquisition and we're continuing to look for opportunities to be as efficient as possible.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Arun Viswanathan with RBC Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.

Thanks for taking my question. Hope you guys are well. And congrats on the new roles there. So I guess two questions. So first off, I know that you've taken actions on eight sites there and evaluating some more options as well and divesting of other assets.

But is it also the case that there has been some structural weakness in the auto market and you guys are potentially overexposed to underperforming regions such as Europe. Do you think because we've seen this inventory overhang now for two or three quarters and then I think you guys have taken decisive action in Q3 and Q4 as well, but it doesn't seem like that's been enough to really clear out the inventory. So do you think the actions in Q1 will result in that inventory reduction or would they linger beyond into Q2 and Q3?

The value chain has too much inventory. We talked about that on our last earnings call. And we're working to match our inventory levels with where the fundamental demand is at. At. Demand has held pretty stable here in the first quarter, but the value chain is rebalancing the inventory footprint.

And that's our channel partners, it's the tiers, the molders and the end customers. And so the line of sight that we have today based upon our outlook is that we would see that come to a close here in the first quarter.

Okay, great. And then if I can follow-up just on the guidance, it looks like the Q1 guidance again is in the $400,000,000 or so EBITDA range, maybe slightly below that. Do you expect that to kind of lift up through the year, maybe into the $1,500,000,000 to $2,000,000,000 range on an annualized basis. And again, that would be more of second half weighted. Is it mostly those cost and productivity actions that would get you there or is it require some recovery and volume growth as well?

Look, our focus is on the decisive actions that we're taking right now. We can't control what happens in the macro, but we can focus on where we spend money, how we drive a level of efficiency, how we interact and access our customers to drive opportunities. And one of the things we called out is a focus on smaller projects in Engineered Materials. One of the great things about smaller projects is they tend to be able to be commercialized in six to twelve months. And so it is it's very important that we continue to work that with a level of aggressiveness to be able to improve kind of that outlook in the second half.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from the line of Patrick Cunningham with Citi. Please proceed with your question.

Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. So some estimates we see on capacity upwards of 3,000,000 tons in 2025, maybe a little less on the BAM side, but still meaningful capacity in the next few years. What gives you confidence that there will not be significant incremental impact from near term capacity? And

does this capacity mean for the utilization rates of your own networks?

We don't see a big change coming in the supply demand landscape, Patrick. And where things are today is the SBL industry is operating below the cost curve. And that's not sustainable. It's not been historically sustainable. And we haven't seen things degrade further even though we've seen new capacity come into the marketplace from a margin perspective.

And so we continue to look at where are those pockets of opportunity up and down the value chain and asset yield where we can pit it. And the team was successful last year growing, for example, our Redispersable Powders business, largely outside of China and other parts of Asia like India and Southeast Asia, where there was a strong pull and growth for some unique applications, such as composite insulation systems, large style adhesives. And so it seems like that, that are going to be critical, where we're partnering with our customers to get the full pull through of that value chain where we have unique technology.

Got it. Understood. And how should we think about incremental benefits from Clear Lake into 2025? I mean, are volumes any sort of offset to contract resets here? Is there any reason why run rate utilization should get worse than where you exited the year, whether it's raw material availability or depressed demand levels?

Just trying to understand The U. S. Operating footprint here.

Look, we're seeing the full run rate of the expansion as we exit 2024. And we've seen some obviously some slight offset from some of those contract resets, which is why we're working other opportunities to offset that. We've got some natural gas headwind in The U. S. To start the year that has seen higher costs, but we do expect that that will wane and come off as the weather improves and we move into the second quarter.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Alexey Yefremov with KeyBanc Capital Markets. Please proceed with your questions.

Thanks. Good morning, everyone. So it sounds like you're deliberately reducing inventory in EM in Q1. Is it possible to size it in terms of EBITDA so that we can understand how much could potentially come back in the second quarter from this deliberate action?

It's really not that substantial, Alexei. I wouldn't say it's kind of material like we saw in the fourth quarter.

Okay. And a follow-up on EM as well. It looks like pricing came down maybe low single digit for the segment in Q4. What do you expect from price in Q1 and potentially Q2, another step down or stabilization?

What we are seeing right now is stabilization for the most part. We're having to be competitive in certain standard grade applications, but the team is also working tenaciously on offsets. I mean, this has been a headwind. But again, in the standard grade application, where margins are at for the industry are really at unsustainable levels. And so we are working on opportunities to be able to turn that high.

The best way to do that is improving mix. And that's where the criticality of working the pipeline and continuing to be successful in some of these more unique higher growth, higher margin segments.

Thank you. Our next question has come from the line of Kevin McCarthy with Vertical Research Partners. Please proceed with your question.

Yes. Thank you and good morning. Scott, are you essentially running Celanese today to maximize cash flow as opposed to maximizing earnings? Or is that not the case and you're really trying to strike a balance between the two?

Look, cash is the priority, Kevin. Given where our debt is at, we are looking to do everything that we can to unlock cash. And I think some of the actions that we have taken, whether it'd be the dividend, the reduction of capital, the reduction in working capital and a tenacious focus there, as well as aggressively working on the divestiture side. It is a focus on

Okay. And then if I may, I want to follow-up on asset yields. I think you idled some capacity temporarily in Singapore and Frankfurt as you discussed in the prepared remarks last night. Do you do that because they go temporarily cash negative or perhaps for a different reason? And wondering if you could talk about your specific operating rate at Clear Lake in the fourth quarter and how you expect that to trend in the first quarter?

The Acetyl team wakes up every day, Kevin, and looks at the landscape that it's in and it pivots. And it pivots up and down the chain. It pivots geographically where it sells. And then we match operating rates to the needs to maximize margin and EBITDA across the landscape and to meet our customers' needs. And that is a model that that team will continue to operate on and will continue to focus on striking that right balance between volume and margin.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from the line of Hassan Ahmed with Alembic Global. Please proceed with your question.

Morning, Scott. First of all, congratulations on the new role and also congratulations on bringing Scott Sutton on board, big fan. First question on the guidance, You guys talked about $0.25 to $0.5 in Q1 EPS and $1.25 to $1.5 as demand recovers in Q2. Now, I mean, if there is no change in the macro in the back half of the year, should we consider $1.25 to $1.5 as the run rate?

Celanese (CE) Q4 2024 Earnings Call Transcript

Company Participants