Among U.S. Corporates, Auto Sector Is
Most At Risk To Trump Trade Plans;
Defense, Energy May Benefit
Primary Credit Analysts:
David C Tesher, New York (1) 212-438-2618; [email protected]
Jennelyn U Tanchua, New York (212) 438-4436; [email protected]
Secondary Contact:
Gregg Lemos-Stein, CFA, London (44) 20-7176-3911; [email protected]
Table Of Contents
Expected Effects By Sector (Alphabetically)
Time Will Tell
WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT
NOVEMBER 11, 2016 1
1755129 | 300000444
Among U.S. Corporates, Auto Sector Is Most At
Risk To Trump Trade Plans; Defense, Energy May
Benefit
For the second time this year, global financial markets have been temporarily roiled by an unexpected outcome in a
key ballot. After Britons' surprise vote in June to leave the EU, Americans took to the polls on Nov. 8 to elect Donald
Trump the 45th president of the U.S.--a largely unforeseen result that had investors quickly selling off riskier assets and
bidding up "safe haven" holdings, before reversing course.
Investor concern appears to be centered around the uncertainty of where President-elect Trump will take government
policy. S&P Global Ratings economists have assessed the potential effects of his stated plans in such areas as fiscal
policy, tax reform, and trade and immigration (see “Can President Trump Reshape The U.S. Economy?,” published
Nov. 10). In this light, our initial impression is that a Trump administration will, overall, have a mixed and mild impact
on U.S. corporate credit.
Following the affirmation of our sovereign credit ratings on the U.S. (see "U.S. 'AA+/A-1+' Ratings Affirmed Following
Presidential Election; Outlook Remains Stable," published Nov. 9), here we discuss the possible effects on various U.S.
corporate sectors from a credit perspective. We don't assume all campaign platform rhetoric will transform into
government policy. Nonetheless, we believe that, on balance, some of the more realistic policy changes could be
positive for corporate taxes (which would decline), coal-related activities, infrastructure, defense spending, and
business regulation (of which there would be less), but possibly negative for sectors that are more dependent on trade
and immigration. (See Chart 1.)
WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT
NOVEMBER 11, 2016 2
1755129 | 300000444
Among U.S. Corporates, Auto Sector Is Most At Risk To Trump Trade Plans; Defense, Energy May Benefit
We foresee the possibility of a high and slightly negative impact on the auto sector. We anticipate moderate effects on
aerospace and defense; consumer goods; healthcare services; leisure; media, telecommunications and cable; metals
and mining; midstream energy; pharmaceuticals; regulated utilities; retail; technology; transportation; and unregulated
power. We expect a low impact in building materials; capital goods; chemicals; forest products; homebuilders; oil and
gas; and REITs.
The more pertinent issues we see recurring across sectors are:
• Trade/tariffs and the global supply chain, where we expect a negative effect on the autos, capital goods, retail and
transportation sectors, and slightly positive effects on metals and mining.
• Tax reform and possible increased repatriation of cash, which should be positive unless funds are redeployed as
shareholder rewards.
• Immigration policy, where we expect negative effects on homebuilders, leisure companies, and retailers.
• The Supreme Court's ruling on the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan (CPP), where we expect
positive effects on metals and mining, and midstream energy; mixed effects on unregulated power producers; and
neutral effects on regulated utilities.
Expected Effects By Sector (Alphabetically)
Aerospace and Defense
WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT
NOVEMBER 11, 2016 3
1755129 | 300000444
Among U.S. Corporates, Auto Sector Is Most At Risk To Trump Trade Plans; Defense, Energy May Benefit
Moderate, slightly positive effects. President-elect Trump supports higher defense spending but also wants to withdraw
from certain international commitments. In this light, the effects are difficult to determine, but likely positive--although
there's less information on funding for specific weapons programs. Higher defense spending would likely result in
improving credit metrics, but shifts in spending priorities could hurt specific companies. Commercial aerospace could
suffer if there are significant changes to international trade agreements that affect the costs of importing components,
or the administration implements other policies that curb global air travel (see “Trump Victory Likely Positive For U.S.
Defense Contractors' Credit Quality,” published Nov. 9).
Autos
High, negative effects. We see autos as the only industry facing a high and negative impact from policies the new
administration may adopt. President-elect Trump has vowed, in his first 100 days, to renegotiate the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which would have a clear effect on the sector's supply chain. Changes to the
agreement could weigh heavily on long-term profitability for automakers that plan to shift small-car production to
Mexico, and others that want to use Mexico as a production hub for emerging markets. Higher tariffs could raise costs,
hurt profit margins, and worsen credit metrics. To the extent such renegotiation leads to uncertainty, it may create
downside risks for some ratings and outlooks in the sector.
Building Materials
Low, slightly positive effects. Further tightening of labor conditions amid a crackdown on undocumented immigrants
could slow home construction, but some experts feel most of this effect has already been absorbed. Increased
spending on infrastructure would be a boon to cement and aggregates producers. The largest effects could involve a
change in corporate taxes, freeing up cash flow for other investments. However, it's not likely to have an effect that
would change the industry outlook or business conditions.
Capital Goods
Low, mixed/uncertain effects. Potential negative effects could come from trade and tariff renegotiations that disrupt
the sector's supply-chain/trade relationships, given the multinational and sometimes complex supply chains
companies operate with. There could be modestly worse business conditions on the trade side, but those could be
offset by a potential increase in infrastructure spending, some repatriation of funds, or an increases in defense
spending.
Chemicals
Low, slightly positive effects. We think there could be a modest benefit to industry outlooks from lower tax rates. Many
of the larger chemical companies have global operations and generate cash overseas, so any reduction in the cost to
repatriate cash would be a modest benefit--albeit for a relatively small number of companies. Meanwhile, higher tariffs
that resulted in lower levels of imports or higher-priced goods from China could boost domestic prices for some
subsectors, such as nitrogen fertilizers, benefitting U.S. producers.
Consumer Durables/Nondurables
Moderate, uncertain effects. The biggest potential negative effects could result from changes in trade policy that cause
trade wars and drive up costs. In addition, multinationals in these sectors depend on emerging markets for growth.
Some currencies in these countries have already been hit hard, and volatility has increased since the election--which
could further weaken these economies, resulting in lower demand. The beverages and tobacco sectors could be hurt if
federal and state governments change excise taxes for tobacco and/or initiate sugar taxes. We haven't heard the
president-elect address this as a campaign theme, but, historically, changes have occurred after elections. The sectors
could benefit from increased consumer spending if the president-elect's increases in spending and lower taxes result in
faster economic growth in the U.S. A lower corporate tax rate and a repatriation tax holiday would improve cash flows.
We believe that if companies were able to bring back cash currently overseas they would use the funds primarily to
repay debt and make acquisitions.
WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT
NOVEMBER 11, 2016 4
1755129 | 300000444
Among U.S. Corporates, Auto Sector Is Most At Risk To Trump Trade Plans; Defense, Energy May Benefit
Forest Products
Low, slightly positive effects. U.S. companies export timber, lumber, and newsprint, so more-favorable trade
agreements might be a positive. The largest effects could come from any substantial change in corporate tax rates.
Health Care Services
Moderate, negative effects. A central component of President-elect Trump's stated health care policy is his desire to
repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which we see as difficult to do. Instead, we believe a more realistic scenario
might be a fairly substantive revision to the program. We think possible revisions could include narrowing the scope of
the law by lowering coverage levels, reducing subsidy funding levels provided to subsidy-eligible enrollees, removing
the individual mandate, or changing the eligibility threshold for subsidy eligibility. However, we believe the
president-elect's stated policy preferences will likely result in lower insurance coverage relative to our prior
expectations, notwithstanding our belief that a full repeal may be difficult, given the political repercussions of
withdrawing coverage for 20 million Americans. In our view, most at risk is the hospital subsector. Still, just as the
initial positive impact in 2014 was relatively modest (many public for-profit hospital operators estimated a
mid-single-digit positive impact to EBITDA), we would expect the downside impact of a repeal to be relatively modest
as well. (Also see “U.S. Presidential Election: Individual And Medicaid Health Insurance Businesses Will Likely Be
Most Affected By "Repeal And Replace"” and "U.S. For-Profit Health Care Service Company Ratings Not Immediately
Affected By Election Results," both published Nov. 10, 2016)
Homebuilders
Low, neutral effects. The home construction force has shrunk not just because of declines in immigrant labor but a shift
to steadier and better-paying industries. Increased labor costs have already put a dent in profit margins.
Leisure
Moderate, uncertain effects. If the new administration's immigration policies are severely restrictive, this could drive up
the cost of labor in the sector and pressure margins. In addition, the leisure sector is highly sensitive to economic
growth and the health of consumer spending, so any meaningful changes in trade or fiscal stimulus policies that either
increase or decrease forecast economic growth would impact revenue and EBITDA trends for many companies in the
industry.
Media, Telecommunications, Cable
Moderate, uncertain effects. President-elect Trump's positions on important media and telecommunications issues
aren't clear, as he has made few, if any, statements regarding regulation of the industries. However, we believe the
media and telecom sectors could benefit if he were to pursue traditionally Republican initiatives such as looser
regulation, and support for mergers and acquisitions (M&A). More than likely, a Republican-led Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) would roll back most of the regulatory initiatives enacted by current Democratic
Chairman Thomas Wheeler, including net neutrality (Title II regulation), privacy, set-top-box reform, and
special-access reform. A loosening of regulation over the cable and broadband service providers would reduce
longer-term risks, although we don't expect this to materially affect credit ratings. In addition, we believe a Trump-led
FCC could relax regulations around media ownership, including loosening the 39% TV-broadcast ownership cap and
revising cross-media ownership rules. These changes would benefit the local television broadcasters and could lead to
further industry consolidation. All told, we believe a Trump presidency could be more supportive of consolidation. If
consolidation in the wireless sector were approved, credit metrics would weaken in the near-term, although this would
be limited to only a few issuers. Longer term, we believe consolidation in the wireless sector would create healthier
industry dynamics.
Metals and Mining
WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT
NOVEMBER 11, 2016 5
1755129 | 300000444
Among U.S. Corporates, Auto Sector Is Most At Risk To Trump Trade Plans; Defense, Energy May Benefit
Moderate, slightly positive effects. The new administration's policies could be favorable for the coal and steel sectors.
As the nomination process for the empty Supreme Court seat will likely resume, the court is scheduled to hear the case
on the CPP, which principally affects coal-burning power plants. As coal companies restructure--and if they benefit
from the elimination of the CPP--they could enjoy stronger credit metrics. Steel and aluminum companies could also
benefit from lower imports and resulting higher selling prices.
Midstream Energy
Moderate, slightly positive effects. The new administration would likely adopt policies that would expand pipeline
development and other industry-friendly policies that would open federal lands to encourage more drilling for gas and
oil. Credit metrics in the sector could strengthen, although not so substantially as to cause significant ratings
movement, in our view.
Oil and Gas
Low, neutral effects. President-elect Trump's plan focuses on energy independence, which could bolster the coal
industry and aid drillers. We would expect a Trump administration could allow drilling in some federally protected
areas (onshore and offshore). We believe the new administration would support any type of fossil-fuel initiative that
would create jobs. The new president could also relax air-quality standards, benefiting coal producers and potentially
affecting coal's competing fuel, which is natural gas. With respect to credit, we believe any benefit would be nominal
and wouldn't lead to any positive ratings actions.
Pharmaceuticals
Moderate, slightly positive effects. President-elect Trump appears to be less focused on a price-control agenda than his
opponent was, but has offered only vague comments on pharmaceutical pricing. He has spoken in general terms about
greater scrutiny over drug prices and of importing less-expensive drugs. The potential for a tax repatriation holiday
would likely benefit pharmaceutical companies with substantial offshore cash balances. While the effect of the election
on pharma may be somewhat positive, our ratings outlook on this sector remains negative, which primarily reflects the
hearty appetite for M&A among borrowers we rate. We believe this could result in negative rating actions in the near
term.
Regulated Utilities
Moderate, slightly positive effects. The credit metrics of borrowers in the sector could strengthen slightly under the
new administration. The fate of the CPP would affect only the pace of coal-fired power plant closures, as utilities
regard coal as a poor investment that wouldn't resume even in the absence of the CPP. The CPP's demise would,
however, lower the risk of coal-based assets being stranded, and therefore modestly ease pressure on regulatory risk
and ratings. The stable outlook on the industry is unlikely to change solely from the election results.
REITs
Low, neutral effects. Tax reform would be a significant and direct issue in the sector if it included changes to REIT
treatment, but we don't anticipate this to be the case. Changes to the deductibility of mortgage interest could influence
multifamily rental sectors. Health care REITs could be affected by changes to the ACA and reimbursement rates for
tenants.
Retail
Moderate, neutral effects. We don't think it's likely we'll see a change in credit metrics directly related to the election, if
the economy continues to expand. Sharp rises in minimum wages, all else being equal, would pressure margins for
some retailers and restaurants in the moderate term. Sharply higher tariffs on goods imported from large retail supply
bases could also weigh on margins. A significant shift in immigration policy bears watching if it reduces the pool of
eligible workers for some retail segments. A few higher-rated issuers are holding some cash overseas, so it would be a
modest positive if they could bring it home at a low tax rate.
WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT
NOVEMBER 11, 2016 6
1755129 | 300000444
Among U.S. Corporates, Auto Sector Is Most At Risk To Trump Trade Plans; Defense, Energy May Benefit
Technology
Moderate, neutral effects. Despite the sector's moderating organic operating growth, increasing debt-financed
acquisition spending, and potential for cash repatriation, tech company outlooks remain generally stable. This is thanks
to large surplus cash balances and financial policies that aim to avoid protracted, significant leverage increases.
Corporate-tax reform could accelerate cash repatriation--with some companies deploying a portion of the funds
toward dividends and share purchases, which could weaken net leverage metrics. We see potential U.S.-China trade
reform as a risk to the operating profitability of the hardware sector because of the growing prevalence and
infrastructure of Chinese contract manufacturers. Business conditions and ratings aren't likely to be materially affected.
Transportation
Moderate, negative effects. It's unlikely that the new administration would have widespread effects on ratings or
industry outlooks. That said, any rating impact would most likely be on companies specifically affected by global trade.
A Trump administration could ease pressures on the phasing out of coal, benefiting railroads. A downside risk is that
any potential trade war could hurt container leasing, chassis leasing at ports, package express companies, and selected
railroads with substantial Mexico exposure.
Unregulated Power
Moderate, mixed effects. The election outcome isn't likely to benefit coal-fired generators in the short term, as they're
facing commodity headwinds. But it could have benefits in the longer term if the CPP is either not enforced or the
Supreme Court tilts away from the EPA. The effects on renewable energy are likely to be muted for now; these have
benefited from extensions of legislated tax credits (which have enjoyed bipartisan support) and renewable-portfolio
standards at the state level--neither of which seems in immediate jeopardy of being changed. While renewables aren't
likely to be interrupted in the near term due to improving economics, renewable standards, and tax credits, in the
longer term the absence of a CPP means fewer incentives, and if there is a lower corporate tax rate, tax incentives for
renewables could be less valuable,
Time Will Tell
For all sectors, the above views are predicated on the view that the president-elect would push to implement his
proposed policies. However, the need to balance competing demands from stakeholders and the views of Congress
could well result in such policies being amended, added to, abandoned, or delayed.
WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT
NOVEMBER 11, 2016 7
1755129 | 300000444
Copyright © 2016 by Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC. All rights reserved.
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part
thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval
system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be
used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or
agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not
responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for
the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an "as is" basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT'S FUNCTIONING
WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no
event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential
damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by
negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and
not statements of fact. S&P's opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase,
hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to
update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment
and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does
not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be
reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives.
To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain
regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P
Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any
damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.
S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective
activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established
policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P
reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites,
www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditportal.com (subscription) and www.spcapitaliq.com
(subscription) and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information
about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.
STANDARD & POOR'S, S&P and RATINGSDIRECT are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC.
WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT
NOVEMBER 11, 2016 8
1755129 | 300000444